UKGI00007761
UKGI00007761
From: Cooper, Tom - UKGI[/O=HMT/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP
(FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=8D968D43E33749AE9E59F9C9350E69D5-
COOPER, THOMAS (TCOO]
Sent: Tue 06/02/2018 6:38:36 PM (UTC)
To: Jane MacLeod!
Subject: RE: Postmaster Group Litigation - SUBJECT TO LEGAL PRIVILEGE - DO NOT FORWARD
OK. Interesting. Thanks
Tom Cooper
Director
UK Government Investments
1 Victoria Street I London I SW1H OET
! will still receive emails sent to my old address until 30 April 2018. Thereafter you will only be able to contact
me on my new address and emails sent to my ukgi.gov.uk address will not be forwarded.
I would be grateful if you could note this and change my contact details accordingly.
From: Jane MacLeod
Sent: 06 February 2018 18:
To: Cooper, Tom - UKGI ¢
Subject: RE: Postmaster G
O LEGAL PRIVILEGE - DO NOT FORWARD.
Hi Tom
Unfortunately the judge does have this power. We are working with Freeths to agree a scope relating to ‘the Horizon
issues’ that will hopefully meet the Judge’s objectives, and be deliverable from our perspective. We'll update you
once we have a proposal.
Kind regards,
Jane
Jane MacLeod
Group Director of Legal, Risk & Governance
Ground Floor
20 Finsbury Street
LONDON
EC2Y 9AQ
Mobile number
UKGI00007761
UKGI00007761
From: Cooper, Tom - UKG!
Sent: 05 February 2018 11
To: Jane MacLeod <}_
Subject: RE: Postmaster Group Litigation - SUBJECT TO LEGAL PRIVILEGE - DO NOT FORWARD
Jane
Sounds encouraging.
One question in relation to the timing of the March 2019 hearing. If all the parties to the litigation think the date is
too early, is it within the judge’s power to force the hearing to take place anyway?
Tom
Tom Cooper
Director
UK Government Investments
1 Victoria Street I London I SW1H OET
Please note that with immediate effect, my email address has changed to
! will still receive emails sent to my old address until 30 April 2018. Thereafter you will only be able to contact
me on my new address and emails sent to my ukgi.gov.uk address will not be forwarded.
I would be grateful if you could note this and change my contact details accordingly.
From: Jane MacLeod
Sent: 04 February 2018 14:32
To: Tim Parker
Carla Stent
}Callard, Richard -
Ken McCall
>; Tim Franklin ¢
UKGI
Cc: Cooper, Tom - UKGI ¢ Alisdair
G
Subject: Postmaster Group Litigation - SUBJECT TO LEGAL PRIVILEGE - DO NOT FORWARD.
All
As flagged at the Board last Monday, there was a further procedural hearing on Friday morning. For reasons to do
with Court scheduling, we had less time than expected and accordingly there will now be a further hearing at the end
of February. Nevertheless we were pleased with the outcome of the hearing:
1. Disclosure
© The Court (Mr Justice Fraser) granted the orders for disclosure in the terms that we sought and made clear
that while Freeths may seek further disclosure, any such request must be a properly focussed request, rather
UKGI00007761
UKGI00007761
than a ‘fishing expedition’ at our expense.
* In adopting this course, the Judge seemed to indicate that his approach to contractual construction was more
likely to follow the orthodox/conventional approach to contract law which we have been advancing, which
limits the evidence that the court can consider when construing a contract.
2. Issues of Fact
© The Judge also ordered the parties to set out between now and early April the issues of fact required for the
November 2018 trial. This was a “win” for us in that we have been requesting this from Freeths for some time.
3. March 2019 Trial and Beyond
© The March 2019 hearing has not been vacated, despite both side’s barristers explaining the difficulties with it.
© The judge wishes the parties to use the hearing to address Horizon related issues, however these will not
relate to any individual’s claim. We are considering the implications of this, but on first impression consider it
positive given that it should focus on objective aspects of Horizon (e.g. the technical basis on which it records
and stores transaction data), rather than subjective matters (e.g. user experience and support).
* A March 2019 trial will however create significant administrative challenges for the parties, as the
preparations for the two, large trials will overlap.
4. Security for Costs
© There was no discussion about security for costs due to the constrained time.
5. Next Steps
¢ A further hearing will be held on 22 February 2018 which will consider:
© the Horizon issues which could go to trial in March 2019 and any loose ends with disclosure.
© the timetable for the Lead Claimants’ trial, which the Judge wants to schedule for Autumn 2019.
© The hearing could also consider timetabling for the security for costs application, assuming it is filed by 22
February 2018. We propose to advise Therium and Freeths this week of our intention to see k security for costs.
As also discussed at the Board we will schedule a series of sub-Committee meetings to coincide with the key
upcoming decision points, and ensure that the Committee is apprised of, and supportive of the strategy.
Please let me know if you have any questions,
Kind regards,
Jane
® Jane MacLeod
Group Director of Legal, Risk & Governance
Ground Floor
20 Finsbury Street
LONDON
EC2Y 9AQ
Mobile numb
UKGI00007761
UKGI00007761
From: Jane MacLeod
Sent: 02 February 2018 18:37
To: ‘Paula Vennells
Alisdair Cameron
Ce: Mark I Melanie Corfield
; Mark Underwood
f ‘0. >
Subject: Postmaster Group Litigation - SUBJECT TO LEGAL PRIVILEGE - DO NOT FORWARD
Paula, Al
Set out below is a summary of the outcome of this morning’s CMC. I attended the hearing as I wanted to see for
myself what the judge was like and how our ‘new’ 2™ QC — David Cavendar, performed. My view was that we ‘won’ in
that we achieved the orders we sought (more limited disclosure ahead of the November hearing), and the judge was
pretty clear that the applicants needed to be reasonable in their approach to the litigation. I thought David
performed well — although the conventions of the Court proceedings meant that he was responding to arguments,
rather than taking the lead.
Overall, the judge was balanced and not minded to entertain the ‘fishing expedition’ approach adopted by the QC for
the applicants. The judge is very keen to move the proceedings along as quickly as possible — he made it very plain to
both parties that he expected at least one hearing on substantive matters in March 2019 (which will be extremely
challenging), and ideally a further hearing in Autumn 2019.
There were no criticisms of Post Office, although I have no doubt that the headlines will be ‘PO is ordered to disclose
documents’. Mark and Mel are on standby for any press coverage.
Due to time constraints (we didn’t get as much Court time as had been indicated) there will be a further hearing in
late February on disclosure and other (material) procedural matters. We also believe that we should proceed with the
application for security for costs — and this is even more important given the requirement for a second hearing in
March, and possibly a third in late 2019. The estimate of £9m for costs flagged to the Board assumes this 2™ hearing.
Please let me know if you would like to discuss. I will send a slightly modified version of this note (and the summary
below) to the Board later tonight.
Kind regards,
Jane
“ Jane MacLeod
Group Director of Legal, Risk & Governance
Ground Floor
20 Finsbury Street
LONDON
EC2Y 9AQ eeceeenemcensnen =
Mobile number{ GRO:
From: Rodric Williams
UKGI00007761
UKGI00007761
Sent: 02 February 2018 15:36
To: Jane MacLeod ¢
Cc: Mark Underwood1 ¢_ >; Andrew Parsons
Subject: Postmaster Group Litigation - Disclosure CMC Skeleton Arguments - SUBJECT TO LEGAL PRIVILEGE - DO NOT
FORWARD
Jane, Tom,
I summarise below this morning’s Case Management Conference (CMC) before Mr Justice Fraser (MJF):
1. Disclosure
« MJF preferred our approach to disclosure, making it clear that Freeths will need to make a properly focussed
request if they want to go beyond the disclosure we offered to provide.
* To mix metaphors, this should prevent Freeths going on a fishing expedition, at our expense, in search of a
“smoking gun”.
« In adopting this course, MJF seemed to prefer the orthodox/conventional approach to contract law that we
had been advancing, which limits the evidence that the court can consider when construing a contract.
2. Issues of Fact
« MIF also ordering the parties to set out between now and early April the issues of fact required for the
November 2018 trial.
© This was a “win” for us. Freeths has consistently refused to do this since we first asked for it in November
2017 (indeed, we were criticised for asking for it in the Claimants’ Skeleton Argument) but will now have to
articulate the factual basis on which they base the claim, rather than continue to rely on their “generic”
pleadings.
3. March 2019 Trial and Beyond
* The March 2019 hearing has not been vacated, despite both side’s barristers explaining the difficulties with it.
* Instead, MJF directed the parties to agree the Horizon issues in the case which can be tried in March 2019.
He made it clear that he would choose the issues if the parties did not.
* MJF also made it clear that these issues could not relate to any individual’s claim.
* Weare considering the implications of this, but on first impression consider it positive given that it should
focus on objective aspects of Horizon (e.g. the technical basis on which it records and stores transaction data),
rather than subjective matters (e.g. user experience and support).
* A March 2019 trial will however create significant administrative challenges for the parties, as the
preparations for the two, large trials will overlap.
4. Security for Costs
© There was no discussion about security for costs at the CMC.
5. Next Steps
* The CMC was adjourned, to come back before MJF on 22 February 2018.
© That hearing will consider the Horizon issues which could go to trial in March 2019 and any loose ends with
disclosure.
UKGI00007761
UKGI00007761
* The hearing is also likely to consider a timetable for the Lead Claimants’ trial, which MJF wants to schedule
for Autumn 2019.
© The hearing could also consider timetabling for the security for costs application, assuming it is filed by 22
February 2018.
6. Overall Impressions
© The hearing today went well for us.
«© MJF recognises that this is large and complex litigation, but is committed to moving it forward at pace, hence
his insistence on keeping the March 2019 trial dates, and foreshadowing further hearing time in Autumn 2019.
Please let me know if you require anything further.
Kind regards, Rod
Rodric Williams
Head of Legal - Dispute Resolution & Brand
20 Finsbury Street
London EC2Y SAQ
2017 Winner of the Global
Postal Award for Customer
Experience
E: rodric.williamg
HERR A AR A 2K REAR RK RF ARR 2 2 GRR 22 KR A GR OR ao
This email and any attachments are confidential and intended for the addressee only. If you are not the named
recipient, you must not use, disclose, reproduce, copy or distribute the contents of this communication. If you
have received this in error, please contact the sender by reply email and then delete this email from your
system. Any views or opinions expressed within this email are solely those of the sender, unless otherwise
specifically stated.
POST OFFICE LIMITED is registered in England and Wales no 2154540. Registered Office: Finsbury Dials,
20 Finsbury Street, London EC2Y 9AQ.
2A 2 24 FRR 2A 2K 2 FAR 2K 2 FARR 0K 22 KR 02 2 SK 08 0 oR 0 Ea
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
This email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom they are
addressed. If you are not the intended recipient and have received this email in error, please notify the sender
and delete the email. This footnote also confirms that our email communications may be monitored to ensure
the secure and effective operation of our systems and for other lawful purposes, and that this email has been
swept for malware and viruses.
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com