POL00364016
POL00364016
From: Jonathan Gribbenf_
Sent: Fri 22/02/2019 4:32:08 PM (UTC)
To:
Subject: Parker 3 [WBDUK-AC.FID123822914]
Attachment: _DOC_154418863(2)_Third Witness Statement of Steven Paul Parker v3.DOCX
Dear all,
Please find attached a draft of Parker 3, which incorporates comments from Steve.
All comments welcome.
Kind regards
Jonny
Jonathan Gribben
Managing Associate
Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP.
womblebonddickinson.com
Yi DICKINSON — y @
Fro inthony de Garr Robinsot
Sent: 22 February 2019 14:16
To: Andrew Parsons; Owain Draper;
Cc: Jonathan Gribben
Subject: RE: JM2 schedule
‘Simon Henderson’
Good grief, and good.
From: Andrew Parsot
Sent: 22 February 2019 13:27
To: Anthony i
Henderson! <
Ce: Jonathan Gribben ¢,
Subject: RE: JM2 schedule
Owain Draper
Further update from Robert.
Coyne is still being a pain
RW asked him straight up whether he thought Horizon was robust, and Coyne refused to answer the question!
Coyne is focusing on there being little evidence of PO remediating branches after a bug. RW's response (entirely
unprompted by me) is that this is missing the point and he intends to put the following in the joint memo:
e Whether the SPM is remediated has a bearing on whether the branch accounts are accurate but has
no bearing on the reliability of Horizon.
e — Horizon is reliable if the bugs are fixed so that they don't reoccur.
POL00364016
POL00364016
e One would not expect to see evidence of remediation in the Peaks and KELs because that was not
their purpose so Coyne's point about a lack of evidence misunderstands the evidence he has.
This very neatly aligns with what Parker 3 will say.
A
Andrew Parsons
Partner
Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP
Stay informed: sign up to our e-alerts
womblebonddickinson.com
) WOMBLE
DICKINSON Yin)
From: Anthony de Garr Robinson
Sent: 22 February 2019 12:27
To: Owain Draper; 'Simon Henderson'; Andrew Parsons
Cc: Jonathan Gribben
Subject: RE: JM2 schedule
He’s not an idiot, he’s biased.
Can you bounce over a copy of the document?
From: Owain Draper
Sent: 22 February 20:
To: Anthony de Garr Robinso [
‘Andrew Parsons’
Cc: Jonathan Gribben ¢
Subject: Re: JM2 schedule
Found it. The answer is that the document that Coyne cites at Coyne 2/5.404(c) does not say what he says it does. It is
fairly clear! The amount settled centrally WILL be treated as a debt UNLESS it is disputed.
From: Anthony de Garr Robinson +...
Date: Friday, 22 February 2019 at 1
To: 'Simon Henderson' ndrew Parsons‘
Cc: Jonathan Gribben ¢
Subject: RE: JM2 schedule
I do agree — although as RW made Simon’s points forcefully to JC in an email a few days ago, I doubt much needs to be
POL00364016
POL00364016
said — it’s more a matter of gently reminding him about what he knows already. I strongly suspect that RW will end up
there anyway. I don't think there is anything more we can or should do. I am at least pleased that RW is determined to
produce something in a form, which is useful to the court. The other side’s mucking about with his inputs when they
have control, is remarkable and troubling, but this is all WP and each expert can do what he wants. The only sanction is
if it becomes apparent that one expert is trying to help the court and the other is not. We’ve no idea if the final document
will demonstrate that we are in this territory.
On RW setting out what he thinks about the 22 bugs in a table, can I repeat a point I made the other day — have
we checked that what he thinks (he gave us a table a week ago) says anything radically inconsistent with what we
now think about the 22 bugs and, if so, is there anything we can do about that, without giving RW material that is
not available to Coyne?
On a careful reading of the reports, there should be much more for the experts to agree about than a superficial reading
suggests. Virtually all the miscellaneous operational/functional issues should be agreed (2 — Horizon alerting SPMs to
bugs; 3 — how does Horizon compare its data to outside data; 8 and 9 — reporting functions available to Post
Office/Fujitsu and SPMs; 14 — functionality in balancing and accepting/disputing shortfalls; and 15 — TCs).
Incidentally, one possible exception is issue 14c(ii), where JC has pointed out that our stated position in the common
issues trial was that a disputed shortfall that was settled centrally was recorded as a debt due to Post Office. I keep
meaning to ask - has RW asked for any help on the point? Do you have any thoughts that might help, Owain?
I don't think it is unhelpful for the experts to delay addressing remote access, since we may be serving useful evidence on
the point in the early part of next week (he said, hopefully). I approved of the proposal to have staged joint statements,
one dealing with robustness/the 22 bugs and some low hanging fruit, and the other dealing with remote access etc. But
there is no more time to play with and we obviously want everything signed off by next Friday at the absolute latest.
Tony
From: Simon Henderso:
Sent: 22 February 2019 11:52
To: ‘Andrew Par:
Owain Draper I GRO
Ce: Jonathan Gribben
Subject: RE: JM2 schedule
Anthony de Garr Robinson!
Andy
I think it would be legitimate to remind Robert that this is a statement of matters agreed and not agreed and while as
a general principle agreement is better than disagreement, he is perfectly entitled to record his position of
disagreement in a standalone way as long as it is made clear that such sections are his views alone. In other words, he
can if he wants go through e.g. the 22 issues and saying what he accepts and rejects in relation to each issue. That is
perhaps a less useful way of presenting things for the Court — since the extent of agreement and disagreement may
not be as apparent as it would be for example if there were to be a single table, but it is a great deal more useful than
producing nothing.
Tony — do you agree?
Best
Simon
From: Andrew Parson:
Sent: 22 February 2019 1.
To: Anthony de Garr Robinso! f
Owain Draper
Ce: Jonathan Gribben
POL00364016
POL00364016
Subject: FW: JM2 schedule
Importance: High
All
See below. Looks like the joint memo is not going well.
I'm not sure that there is a lot that we can do?
A
Andrew Parsons
Partner
Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP.
Stay informed: sign up to our e-alerts
womblebonddickinson.com
WOMBLE
BOND
DICKINSON y ©
Simon Henderson
4 Pump Court, Temple, London, EC4Y 7AN: www.4pumpcourt.com
Follow us on twitter @4PumpCourt
View Profile Connect with us on Linkedin
Pump Court International I www.pumpcourtinternational.com
Terms of Work: Barristers at 4 Pump Court carry out services on 4 Pump Court Terms, which are available on our website,
unless otherwise agreed in writing. I View Terms
Privacy: Your attention is drawn to our Privacy Notice in relation to any personal data that we may obtain and/or otherwise
process about you. I View Privacy Notice
Notice of Confidentiality and Privilege: This email (including attachments) is confidential to the addressee, and may be
subject to legal professional privilege. If you are not the addressee, you must not copy, distribute or otherwise use it or any
information contained in this email. Please delete it, and destroy all copies
POL00364016
POL00364016
From: robert worden.
Sent: 22 February 2019 10:27
To: Andrew Parsons; Jonathan Gribben
Cc: 'Chris Emery’
Subject: JM2 schedule
Importance: High
Andy -
Producing JM2 is proving very difficult.
Jason and Siobhan made a total mess of it while they were editing it into their template, and conveniently lost a large
proportion of my inputs.
Yesterday Chris did a heroic job of restoring it to a decent state, and restoring all my inputs.
However, I strongly suspect that Jason is creating confusion and delay in order to stop it being a useful document for
the court. Siobhan is competent and could have produced a decent document if she had wanted to.
He and Siobhan have the baton today on the master version, and might try to make a mess of it again. (if necessary I
will go back to a clean version and put in their rows and mods to agreements which I can accept)
We agreed during the meeting that getting JM2 out today was not possible, and that we would probably slip until
Monday.
Jason is at a wedding most of the weekend, and Chris is tied up for most of it. Fortunately I have most of the weekend
available to sort it out if necessary.
It appears that JM2 is going to cover the bugs table and selected issues - certainly 1, certainly not 3, certainly not
remote access 10, probably 9, 14 and 15.
A schedule of Wednesday for JM3 is therefore looking very challenging.
Any advice gratefully received!
Robert
Please consider the environment! Do you need to print this email?
bnly is authorised to a
The information in this e-mail and any attachments i ly privileged and pre
this e-mail and any attachments. If you are not she otify andrew parsong posible and delete
use, dissemination, distribution, publication or copying of this communic
our Privaey Poliey on our website,
ments is prohibited and m
ped to this e-mail will have been checked by us with virus detection software bef mission, Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP aecepts no liability for any
which may be caused by software viruses and you should carry out your own virus checks before opening any attachment.
Content of this email which does not relate to the official business of Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP, is neither given nor endorsed by it.
POL00364016
POL00364016
This email is sent by Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP which is a limited liability partnership
is 4 More London Riverside, London, SE1 2AU, whi
or consultant who is of equivalent standing. Our VAT registration number is GB123393627.
istered in England and Wales under number 0C317661. Our registered office
ion, We use the term partner to refer to a member of the LLP, or an employee
a list of members’ names is open to inspe
Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP is a member of Womble Bond Dickinson (International) Limited, whi
services in the US, the UK, and elsewhere around the world. Each Womble Bond Dickinson entity is a separa
can bind or obligate, another Womble Bond Dickinson entity. Womble Bond Dickinson (International) Limited does not practice law, Please see
gal notices for further details.
consists of independent and autonomous law firms providing
Te
entity and is not responsible for the aets or omissions of, nor
Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com