6.2
6.3
POL00448713
POL00448713
POST OFFICE LIMITED BOARD MEETING
Strictly Confidential
KGKC advised that she would be pleased to update the Board at any time. The Chair
thanked KGKC and KGKC left the meeting at 12:59.
Inquiry Budget
TABLED and NOTED was a report, ‘Inquiry Cost Options’.
The Board noted that the recommendation was for an alternative firm to be instructed for
Phase 5 onwards but with HSF to be retained for targeted strategic advice to mitigate the
risk of discontinuity arising from changing law firm mid-way through the Inquiry.
BF spoke to the paper advising that whilst it was subject to further refinement it clearly
conveyed the significant increase in cost, the reasons for which had been set out by KGKC
in the immediately prior session and in previous papers provided to the Board.
BF referenced the need to make arrangements for alternative legal representation in
relation to Phase 5 of the Inquiry because of HSF’s risk of a future conflict in relation to
Phase 5 of the Inquiry and advised that, given the possibility of this, Board approval was
sought to authorise management to commence a tender process for an alternate firm.
The Board noted this, as well as the potential cost savings associated with appointing an
alternative firm for Phase 5 onwards and the chance to reset the legal partnership, as set
out in the Paper.
BF advised that Board approval was also sought to delegate authority to the CFO to
approve (1) Inquiry costs for the period up until the next Board Meeting and; (2) FTE costs
for the life of the Inquiry Programme.
LH queried when the revised budget would be returned to the Board. BF advised that this
would tie in with the 3-year plan and be returned to Board on 9 March.
The Board RESOLVED:
1. Management authorisation to commence a tender process for an alternate
external law firm to HSF for Phases 5, 6 and 7 of the Inquiry be and is
hereby APPROVED;
2. HSF be retained for targeted strategic issues arising in relation to Phases 5, 6 and 7
of the Inquiry; and
3. Authority be DELEGATED to the Company's CFO to approve Inquiry spend for the
period up to the next Board Meeting and for FTE costs for the life of the
Programme be and is hereby APPROVED.
DW and GL left the Meeting at 13:03.
HMU Budget
RA re-joined the Meeting at 13:04.
TABLED and NOTED was a report, ‘Historical Matters - HMU Funding Request’.
SR spoke to the paper, providing the Board with an update on the current financial
position of HMU, the continued cost challenges being conducted, and the potential
opportunities to achieve cost efficiencies. Funding was requested for HMU activities for
Page 8 of 17
STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
POL-BSFF-WITN-035-0000011
6.4
6.5
POST OFFICE LIMITED BOARD MEETING
Strictly Confidential
the next 2 months, and the team would return to the next Board Meeting to request
funding for activities for the FY23/24.
The Board RESOLVED:
(i) the drawdown of funding for HSS Pre Offer delivery costs £4.028m including IVAT
and Late Application costs be and is hereby APPROVED;
(ii) the drawdown of funding for HSS Post Offer delivery costs £791k including IVAT
and Late Application costs be and is hereby APPROVED; and
(iii) the drawdown of funding for CCRC/DGA delivery costs £1.7m including IVAT be
and is hereby APPROVED.
HMU Update
TABLED and NOTED were the following papers:
(i) ‘Historical Matters Programme Update’; and
(ii) “HMBU Finance Update’.
Key discussion points were as follows:
e Inrelation to overturned historical convictions, SR spoke to the potential future
appellant triage review that was being conducted, which was due to conclude next
month. So far, it appeared that 12% of cases were cases that the Company may be
able to concede. Once the review exercise was complete, a decision would need
to be taken as to how the results of the review exercise were utilised, for example,
writing to the individuals and advising them. Despite a number of previous
approaches, any such approach might not result in a significant number of new
cases. BT suggested that management refer the review results to the CCRC and
request the CCRC undertake any subsequent approaches. LH agreed with this;
« SR was of the view that we needed to start a conversation with the shareholder as
to why the number of appellants was low and map out all the reviews and
approaches that had taken place to encourage potential appellants to come
forward. In respect of the path to obtaining compensation, remediation was more
of an engaged process, so for those who would engage with us, it would be a
better experience;
¢ SR advised, in respect of overturned historical convictions, that 2 of the Public
Interest Only cases had been settled the previous day. SR was delighted with the
outcome for Postmasters. There was one case in this category which remained
outstanding. BT advised that there could be another case in the pipeline. Whilst
there may be very little appetite to prosecute in the Crown Court, the Company
had a duty to ensure that people who were guilty remained guilty. AC cautioned
that if a decision was taken at HRC to prosecute, then this would need to be
returned to the Board for consideration;
e Inrespect of Postmaster detriment suspension payments, correspondence had
been issued last week to Postmasters.
GLO Disclosure
TABLED and NOTED was a report, ‘GLO Disclosure’.
SR spoke to the paper. NR emphasised the management time and management
bandwidth that would be required to facilitate this request. SR advised that the Board and
management would need to stay close to this exercise to ensure consistency with our
outcomes.
Page 9 of 17
STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
POL00448713
POL00448713
POL-BSFF-WITN-035-0000011_ 0001