POL00390517
POL00390517
Mark Underwood;
Sent: Wed 13/04/2016 5:52:25 AM (UTC)
To:
Jane MacLeod.
Davies}
Subject: RE: Group Action against Post Office Limited
Thanks Mel,
I doubt the class action will have anything to do with allegations about the computer system. Do we want to prepare
lines now, for what we think will be — contract, support, abuse of power etc — so that we are prepared when any letter
of claim does materialise?
Mark
From: Tom Wechsler
Sent: 12 April 2016 23:09
Patrick Bourke; Jane Hill
Subject: RE: Group Action against Post Office Limited
l agree. Less is more at the moment.
T
Sent from my Windows Phone
From: Melanie Corfield
Sent: 12/04/2016 23:04
To: Rodric Williams; Jane MacLeod; Mark R Davies; Mark Underwood!e
Subject: RE: Group Action against Post Office Limited ~
Patrick Bourke; Tom Wechsler; Jane Hill
Hi again
Adapting from the lines we have been holding reactively on the recent Freeths letter to subpostmasters I
suggest our holding line is simply: “The solicitors have not set out the basis of any claim.”
I think I am of the view we should not add anything else at all, simply field other questions, on Horizon or
indeed anything else on this, with “We have previously made our position perfectly clear.”
We do have the line (from recent briefing): “A very small group of former postmasters have continued to
make allegations about Horizon but, after rigorous investigations over more than three years, there has
been no evidence put forward to support these.”
But my view is that a one-liner on the lack of basis of claim is sufficient, suitably dismissive and completely
reasonable in the circumstances? The JFSA website is clearly doing yet another trawl of potential claimants
and we need to reflect the ‘ambulance chasing’ nature of this in way we respond?
Mel
POL00390517
POL00390517
From: Rodric Williams
Sent: 12 April 2016 19:11 i
To: Jane MacLeod; Mark R Davies; Mark Underwood
Subject: RE: Group Action against Post Office Limited
‘Patrick Bourke; Melanie Corfield; Tom Wechsler
All — thanks for your time earlier this evening. As promised, I set out below my bullet point thoughts in case it
helps you identify issues that need to be considered.
As ever, please let me know if you want anything further.
Rod
1. Claim Form
a. £10k fee (assuming over £200k damages)
b. Filing will have been triggered by a limitation issue
c. Don’t know which court (QBE, Chancery, Admin; Commercial, Mercantile, TCC) — procedural
implications
d. 4 months to serve i.e. by 10 August 2016
e. Service starts time running (14, 28, 56, ?? days)
f. Service starts costs running
g. Must include:
i. Concise statement of nature of claim (breach of contract?)
ii. Remedy (damages)
iii. Claim for money inc. interest (should be “in excess of £200k”)
h. Shouldn’t have been issued without knowledge of the claim sufficient to send a Letter of Claim (signed
statement of truth)
2. What I think it means:
a. They’re not that confident in their case, and don’t want to go on costs risk by serving Claim Form just
yet
b. They know they have limitation issues
c, They want to get us to a table as quickly as possible
3. Mediation
a. Unreasonable refusal to mediate may sound in costs
b. Easy to find reasonable grounds to refuse, but keep the door open to mediate when the claim is ripe
c. Freeths will want mediation asap because they'll expect us to get the cheque book out
d. Careful that they don’t question our bona fides to mediation (again) if we don’t immediately pay up
e. We are defensible on mediation given steps taken to date (b.i.m. some refused!), esp. if we keep open
the possibility
4. Suggested approach
a. Make them do the work
b. Be clear, polite and defensible in doing so
POL00390517
POL00390517
5. Suggested response
a. Acknowledge receipt — not too keen (c.o.p. Thursday)
b. To come from POL (Jane, RW as addressee?)
c. Nothing on Claim Form — up to them to decide what they do with their aspects of the case
d. They should be able to give us:
i. Claimants’ names
ii. Nature of the case (as per the Claim Form)
e. This is necessary to preserve documents i.a.e.
f. Without it, our position on preservation of documents remains as per our last letter
g. Can’t commit to mediation (or anything) until we know:
what your case is;
ii. who it’s for; and
iii. mediation could reasonably be expected to help resolve the parties’ differences.
6. Other affected parties:
a. BIS (inc BNR)
b. CCRC
c. Deloitte work — stop? JSQC to advise?
d. Fujitsu —inc w.r.t. HorizonAnywhere — and impact on privilege
e. Internal comms and Privilege
f. Document preservation — ISAG?
g. Internal comms and reporting lines (for privilege)
h. External Comms, incl. on:
i. Mediation
ii. Doc preservation
iii. Limitation periods
iv. Claimant’s ability to fund litigation if their case was good (if they abandon it because of
lack of funds)
7. Bigger Picture - we’re keeping Horizon and essentially the same contract terms, so must be careful not to
open door for future claims.
From: Rodric Williams
Sent: 12 April 2016 15:55 _
To: Jane MacLeod; Mark R Davies; Mark Underwood/!Patrick Bourke; Melanie Corfield; Tom Wechsler
Subject: FW: Group Action against Post Office Limited
All — please see the attached letter from Freeths, confirming that they filed a claim against us in the High Court
yesterday on behalf of 91 Claimants, including Alan Bates.
However, they have not served the claim, so the case has not yet begun, and as the letter itself notes, it is still not a
“Letter of Claim”, so we don’t yet know what the actual claims will be. We have told to expect the letter of claim
within the next 14 days.
I have my thoughts about what this all actually means and where it takes us, but thought I should circulate it as soon
POL00390517
POL00390517
as possible rather than wait on a longer email from me!
On that note, I understand we can meet to discuss this at 530pm in Jane’s room. Mark U will be sending a diary
invitation shortly.
Please let me know if you need anything in the meantime.
Kind regards, Rod
From: Imogen Randall [mailtoi_
Sent: 12 April 2016 14:17
To: Rodric Williams
Cc: James Hartley
Subject: Group Action against Post Office Limited
Dear Sirs
Please see attached.
Yours faithfully
Freeths LLP
Imogen Randall
Associate
Dispute Resolution
FREETHS
Freeths LLP, Floor 3, 100 Wellington Street, Leeds LS1 4LT