UKG100009346
UKGI00009346
From: Tolhurst, Mpst (BEIS)[N_ &
Sent: Thur 21/03/2019 9:44:41 AM (UTC)
To: Clarke, Stenhen..LIKGUS
UKGI[T¢_ te)
Ce: Aldred, Tom - UKGI[:
(BEIS)
Clark, Mpst (BEIS)I
Watson, Richard - UKGIf
UKGI"
Craig (
~-....i Watson,
I; Vandini, Cecilia
Beckett, Richard
Lambert, Gavin (Advanced Manufacturing
Vv:
(Finance & Portfalia
and Services)[G..
Subject: Re: Official Sensitive: Post Office Litigation Update
Hi Stephen,
I spoke to Tom A about this, Kelly was after a summary of any discussions at the POL board has had since last
weekend. I’ve seen Tom C’s read outs but if you could just summarize them in a formal 1-2 page document it
would be very much appreciated.
Thanks,
Jess
Jessica Tysoe
Private Secretary to Kelly Tolhurst MP
1 Victoria Street, London, SW1H OET
From: Clarke, Stephen - UKGI,__ “¢
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2019 9:39 AM
To: Tolhurst, Mpst (BEIS); Cooper, Tom - UKGI
Cc: Aldred, Tom - UKGI; Clark Spad, Mpst (BEIS); Permanent Secretary; Clark, Mpst (BEIS); Evans, Gareth (BEIS); Watson,
Richard - UKGI; Lambert, Lucie - UKGI; Fox, Joshua - UKGI; Watson, Craig (Advanced Manufacturing and Services);
Vandini, Cecilia (Advanced Manufacturing and Services); Beckett, Richard (Finance & Portfolio); Lambert, Gavin
(Advanced Manufacturing and Services)
Subject: RE: Official Sensitive: Post Office Litigation Update
Hi Jess,
Please could you clarify the following commission from your email below:
“Grateful if an update on the outcomes of discussions at the various board meetings can be prepared by 12
tomorrow, ideally in a 1-2 pager document”.
There was only one board meeting yesterday — to decide on the recusal application — which Tom C already provided a
readout of. We can supplement this with the Board Paper (or the summary) that formed the basis of the discussion.
Will this be sufficient?
Thanks,
UKG100009346
UKGI00009346
Stephen
Stephen Clarke I Post Office Shareholder Team
UK Government Investments
Corporate finance and governance in government.
1 Victoria Street I London I SW1H OET
From: Tolhurst, Mpst (BEIS) [mailt
Sent: 20 March 2019 15:57
To: Cooper, Tom - UK
Ce: Aldred, Tom - UK
Spad, Mpst (BEIS)
>
Clarke, Stephen - UK
; Permanent Secretary
Clark
Clark,
UKGI
>; Beckett, Richard (Finance &
g and Services)
Subject: RE: Official Sensitive: Post Office Litigation Update
Hi All,
Kelly won’t be going ahead with any calls this evening.
She would like to send the letter to appoint a new CEO this evening, she wants an additional paragraph at the end of
the letter to set out on the lines of: As POL is going through a critical change and time, I look forward to agreeing a
more formulated channel of communication to ensure we work together to take on board the upcoming
opportunities.
Grateful if a final paragraph can be added so I can clear by Kelly by 5pm.
She is currently reviewing the Permanent CEO and interim CFO documents and will update me if she is content.
Grateful if an update on the outcomes of discussions at the various board meetings can be prepared by 12 tomorrow,
ideally in a 1-2 pager document.
Many thanks,
Jess
Jessica Tysoe
Private Secretary to Kelly Tolhurst MP
1 Victoria Street, London, SW1H OET
From: Cooper, Tom - UKGI <
Sent: 20 March 2019 14:44
To: Tolhurst, Mpst (BEIS:
Ce: Aldred, Tom - UKGI ¢ GRO. Py
Spad, Mpst (BEI ; Permanent Secretary!
>; Clark,
UKG100009346
UKGI00009346
Evans, Gareth (BEIS)!_
. Watson, Richard - UKGI
>; Lambert, Lucie - UKGI /
; Fox, Joshua - UKGI
Apologies my note is missing the punchline. POL’s Board approved seeking the recusal which will be lodged in Court
tomorrow
Sent from my iPhone . ne
On 20 Mar 2019, at 14:20, Cooper, Tom - UKGI <i _ GRO wrote:
Recusal
I just attended the Board meeting of POL.
There was a full discussion of the issues.
Lord Grabiner gave strong advice in favour of seeking recusal which he described as the only option
available to the Company to seek redress for the unfairness in the first trial and prevent further
unfairness in the second trial. He was clear in his opinion that Post Office isn’t receiving a fair trial even if
they might (or might not) eventually be found to be at fault.
The Board had a full discussion of the reputational consequences and concluded that the risks could be
managed. One of the key concerns with the Horizon trial is that the judge might go beyond the joint
evidence of the expert witnesses and conclude that the system doesn’t work today, something that
would be highly damaging for customer and postmaster confidence. In that context a number of the
directors felt that the recusal application is necessary in order to try to protect the business today.
There are many operational consequences from last week’s judgement that the management team are
focused on and will come back to the Board on Monday. So far management have been relieved that the
response, particularly from postmasters, has been relatively light. Having said that it is still early days
and they expect to get a better picture in the next week or so when there is a monthly settlement date.
The Board now has independent legal support which is very welcome and something we have been
pushing for. I hope this will be a catalyst for mapping out a path to resolving this case.
Tom
Sent from my iPhone .
On 19 Mar 2019, at 17:15, Tolhurst, Mpst (BEIS) ¢
P wrote:
Hi Tom, and thanks to Stephen for his email earlier,
I briefly discussed this with Kelly over the phone and as expected she has concerns.
Immediately she said she would raise with SoS, I have flagged this to his office, and I
believe she has already contacted him.
She agreed that they shouldn’t do anything until after the decision has been made at the
UKG100009346
UKGI00009346
board meeting/call tomorrow and it is likely that she will want another call with Tim Parker
and Al Cameron after this to ask them to explain their reasoning behind their change of
mind.
I will keep you updated on any outcomes of her discussion with SoS.
Kind regards,
Jess
<image003.png> Jessica Tysoe
Private Secretary to Kelly Tolhurst MP
Parliamentary Under Secretary of State
Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy
1 Victoria Street, London, SW1H OET
www.gov.uk/beis I_https: twitter.com, beisgovuk
From: Aldred, Tom - UKGI ¢_
Sent: 19 March 2019 16:24
olhurst, Mpst (BEIS)
; Permanent Secretar
Clark, Mpst (BEIS):
Watson, Richard - UKGI
ambert, Lucie- UKGI¢ GRO.
i Watson, Craig (A
Cooper, Tom - UKGI
and Services) ¢_
— Lambert, Gavin (Advanced
Vandini, Ce
Beckett, Richard (BEIS) < GRO
Manufacturing and Services) ¢
Subject: RE: Official Sensitive: Post Office Litigation Update
Jess
We spoke. To confirm, POL have a Board call tomorrow at which they will take the
decision. The strong legal advice is that the minister should not be involved in this
decision. We advise the best time for a call with POL would be after a decision has
been taken, so that POL could explain their reasoning for the change of mind (if
that is the case), since the weekend’s call with the minister
Tom
Tom Aldred, Post Office Shareholder Team, UKGI
Th,
From: Clarke, Stephen - UKGI
Sent: 19 March 2019 15:49
To: Tolhurst, Mpst (BEIS
Cc: Clark Spad, Mpst (BEIS)
Permanent Secretary
; Evans,
Gareth (BEIS)
Fox,
Watson, Craig (Advanced Manufacturing and
>; Cooper, Tom - UKGI ia
Vandini, Cecilia (Advanced Manufacturing
; Beckett, Richard (BEIS)
ambert, Gavin (Advanced Manufacturing and Services)
Joshua - UKGI
Services) <
Aldred, Tom - UKGE
Post Office Litigation Update
Official Sensitive and Subject to Legal Privilege — do not forward outside this distribution
Jess,
As discussed with Tom and Craig, see below an update for the Minister on POL’s response
to Friday’s judgement. I also attach POL’s first report on the second (Horizon Issues) trial
that started on 11 March.
“As you know POL have been considering possible grounds of appeal. One of those
grounds is that the judge has acted in a procedurally unfair way by making findings of fact
which are not relevant to the determination of the common issues trial and upon which
there had not been full disclosure between the parties, both of documents and witness
evidence. Part of POL's argument on appeal is that the judge has improperly allowed his
findings on post contractual events to influence his ruling on what the terms of the
contracts were between POL and Postmasters. That is legally impermissible. Linked to this
unfairness issue is a real concern that the Judge made findings of fact in such a way as to
betray a prejudice to POL which means it would no longer be fair for the Judge to continue
to hear the proceedings in the current and any future trials. As you are aware, the judge is
currently hearing the second trial, which started on 11 March, and POL feel that the
findings in the first trial may adversely impact the fairness of the litigation. Given all the
above, POL appear likely to make an application for the judge to take no further part in the
litigation (i.e. to recuse himself from proceedings).
Applications for recusals such as this are rare, especially in circumstances that do not
involve a conflict of interest on the part of the judge, but rather are based on procedural
unfairness. If such an application is made, it is likely to generate significant media
attention. However, POL have taken additional legal advice from very senior barristers
who have not had any prior involvement in the case and so have an independent
viewpoint. While the legal advice could change, the current legal advice is a clear
recommendation in favour of seeking a recusal. Tom Cooper’s feedback from the recent
POL board call on this topic is that the board are not enthusiastic about making this
application but feel there is no option given the additional legal advice received. This is
particularly the case given that the second trial is currently being heard by the same judge
and includes testimony from witnesses who have been discredited in the first judgment.
The advice from BEIS Legal and UKGI Legal is that BEIS officials/Ministers and the
shareholder NED should not be involved in POL’s formal decision-making on the recusal
application, although they may participate in discussions and hear the advice from POL’s
legal team. A final decision on whether to make this application is likely to be made on
Wednesday 20 March. If POL decide to proceed we will let you know and provide defensive
lines. If you require further detail on the legal arguments underpinning the application for
recusal we can arrange a call to include Post Office.”
Stephen Clarke I Post Office Shareholder Team
UKG100009346
UKGI00009346
UKG100009346
UKGI00009346
UK Government Investments
Corporate finance and governance in government.
1 Victoria Street I London I SW1H OET
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
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