UKGI00044247
UKGI00044247
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
SUBJECT TO LITIGATION AND COMMON INTEREST PRIVILEGE
NOT TO BE COPIED OR DISCLOSED
Horizon Litigation: facts of the case, including relevant background, for BEIS
Permanent Secretary Alex Chisholm
Background
4. Transactions at the post office counter are undertaken on the Horizon system,
which is used by c50,000 people per day across the network, and which POL
estimates has been used by around half a million employees, agents or employees
of agents since it was introduced in 1999.
2. In 2012 a small number of (mostly former) subpostmasters, under the banner of
the “Justice for Subpostmasters Alliance” ("JFSA’) and with support from some
MPs led by then-MP (now Lord) James Arbuthnot, claimed POL’s Horizon IT
system had caused losses (shortfalls in physical cash against cash holdings
recorded on Horizon) which they had had to make good. In some cases they had
been prosecuted for these losses (usually for false accounting, theft or both) while,
in other cases, they claim that it led to financial hardship, bankruptcy or
consequential, personal losses ranging from divorce to suicide.
3. An independent firm of forensic accountants, Second Sight, were commissioned to
examine the system for evidence of flaws which could cause accounting
discrepancies. Second Sights initial report in June 2013 found no evidence of
systemic flaws in Horizon. A final report in 2015 did find that in some cases POL
could have provided more training and support to some subpostmasters, though
Post Office disputes many of Second Sight's findings.
4. Acomplaint review and mediation scheme (the scheme”) was established in 2013,
with JFSA involvement, to work through 150 applications in an effort to understand
and ideally resolve the individual disputes. This included specific investigation into
each of the 136 individual cases accepted into the scheme (the other 14 having
been capable of summary resolution). As before, no evidence of systemic flaws in
the system was found; rather the investigations (by Second Sight and Post Office)
found that the main reason for losses in the majority of cases was “errors made at
the counter” by the subpostmaster or their staff. To date, UKGI and BEIS have not
been privy to the details of individual cases, as POL considers these to be
confidential between POL and the individuals.
5. The scheme was closed in early 2015 once all 136 applicants had received reports
from POL and Second Sight into their individual complaints. The JFSA however
was not satisfied with the outcomes from the scheme, with many applicants
seeking substantial sums in compensation which were not forthcoming, and others
seeking to overturn criminal convictions which the scheme could never provide.
6. None of the scheme applicants convicted of an offence have appealed their
conviction or their sentence.' However, since the scheme launched, 33 individuals
1. On 14 August 2017 Post Office did however receive notice from the Criminal Appeal Office that a former
subpostmaster is seeking permission to appeal his 25 September 2008 conviction on 11 counts of theft
following losses of £208,000 at the Post Office branch where he had been subpostmaster. The appellant did
UKGI00044247
UKGI00044247
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
SUBJECT TO LITIGATION AND COMMON INTEREST PRIVILEGE
NOT TO BE COPIED OR DISCLOSED
with convictions have applied to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC),
whose review process has now been going on for around three years. BEIS/UKGI
have disclosed information to the CCRC, as required to do by law, for their
investigations, as has POL. POL do not know when the CCRC will reach a
decision in any of the cases.
7. There has been significant lobbying by the JFSA of Parliament and through the
media, although this has not altered POL’s position which is that these are
individual disputes which are now best resolved through the Court's processes.
Nature of the Complaint
8. In recent years, the focus of the complaints by subpostmasters has shifted from
issues with the IT system, to the alleged “unfairness” of the contract between POL
and subpostmasters. These allegations are now being progressed in the High
Court “Post Office Group Litigation”.
9. The litigants are claiming that their written contract did not reflect the true nature of
the POL-subpostmaster relationship. While they accept that there was a principal—
agent relationship in force, they nevertheless maintain that the relationship was a
closer one akin to an employment relationship and, as such, they are trying to shift
the burden of responsibility for explaining accounting losses from subpostmasters
fo POL. Linked to this, they are also seeking to establish that the contract implies
other terms that further shift the burden of responsibility onto POL — for example,
that POL had an obligation to provide sufficient training to Subpostmasters to help
them avoid accounting errors.
10. There are now around 561 Claimants in the case. The common features of the
Claimants are that most were engaged on Post Office's standard contract terms
and all will have used the Horizon system. Post Office denies that the contracts
should be interpreted as contended by the Claimants, and also contends that many
Claimants do not have standing to bring claims because they are time-barred, an
abuse of process due to pre-existing criminal convictions, or have already been
resolved, with signed settlement agreements in place.
Measures taken by POL
41.POL considers that it has undertaken a significant amount of work ever since the
claims were first raised to establish the nature of the issues raised by the
subpostmasters. In addition to the scheme, which was entirely funded by POL,
and paying for the Second Sight forensic investigation (whilst also reinvestigating
each case itself), POL has taken and continues to take privileged legal advice from
Leading Counsel and engaged Dr Robert Worden of Charteris Consulting Ltd as its
not apply to the scheme or to the CCRC, and is not a Claimant in the Post Office Group Litigation. This matter
currently rests with the Court for a decision.
2 Bates & Others v. Post Office Limited, High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, Claim No’s HQ16X01238,
HQ17X02637, HQ17X04248.
UKGI00044247
UKGI00044247
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
SUBJECT TO LITIGATION AND COMMON INTEREST PRIVILEGE
NOT TO BE COPIED OR DISCLOSED
experienced expert IT witness. This advice is being kept under continuous review
by POL’s senior management.
The Litigation Process
12. Post Office has engaged two QCs and are being advised by Womble Bond
Dickinson, a major transatlantic law firm.
13. The claim was served on Post Office on 5 August 2016. Several procedural
hearings have been held since then. The first substantive hearing (“Common
Issues Trial’) will commence on 5 November 2018 for four weeks. The Common
Issues Trial will principally look to determine the true meaning and effect of Post
Office's standard contracts. Six Lead Claimants have been selected to assist with
this. The “Horizon Issues Trial” will then be held in March 2019 to look in detail at
the specific technical issues claimed in relation to Horizon, which will be
determined with the assistance of expert evidence. Further trials will then be
needed to resolve other issues, including whether Post Office has breached any of
its obligations, and if so, the damage caused by such breach.
14. The nature of the claims include claims for loss of future earnings, other business
losses, reputational damage and emotional harm. Although some Claimants have
provided some indicative claim values, these are incomplete, inconsistent, possibly
duplicative and prone to inaccuracy, and Post Office has raised its concerns in this
regard with the Court. The Claimants have not yet formally articulated the
quantum of their aggregate claims and Post Office does not expect that they will do
so until after judgment is received on the Common Issues trial, later in
November/December 2018.
15.To date, there have been no settlement discussions between the parties. The
Court has ordered the parties to attend mediation after receipt of the judgment on
the Common Issues Trial.
16.POL is currently seeking security for its costs, such that they have assurance that
should they win the case they can seek to recover costs from the Claimants. Both
parties have filed cost budgets with the Court, with the estimated litigation costs for
each side up to the end of the Horizon Issues Trial being in the region of £13m
(inclusive of all costs incurred to date).
17. The Claimants’ action is being funded by a private equity firm, Therium, who
specialise in legal claims. If this follows a traditional litigation funding model,
Therium will take a cut of any compensation awarded to the Claimants. The
specific funding arrangements in place for this litigation are however privileged to
the Claimants, and therefore not available to POL at this stage of the proceedings.
Ongoing Work and Next Steps
UKGI00044247
UKGI00044247
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
SUBJECT TO LITIGATION AND COMMON INTEREST PRIVILEGE
NOT TO BE COPIED OR DISCLOSED
18.POL has established a board sub-committee to consider the issues as they arise
on behalf of the board. The schedule for both the sub-committee meetings and
board meetings has been synchronised to the Group Litigation Timetable so that
POL and its advisors can provide regular updates at critical junctures in the trial
process.
Bude
poe ;
~~ wenes tok £ Tam onward ,
fan 6 98 CEE es IT
~ Honpoe May 14
~ Bread , canwhion, loa Nev lt we (tig
ae ere
$e pee ope ‘ ow 23 couteabuod meres. - eclatuew Lap - ~82R ov cupleyet
- not Ac rapqllfomoaed . Seong dnoblig we del coutencks Peet
- ly a ol weap ube couoak. Ness laws,
pe bat ro ll Net normal. Cue waght be sages
- POL bas boli §} js AE
- Pol dred 2 teow = cape
‘ [OZOW, hate, Rol
Rents 8 law t week, Fol deste sles bell Bag tag oy tt lly
ye Ne
“ cubbPM, coukrnck (luet aye wel well deafterl.
uve (vob a COO par).
PM see ran he gears fh pomen voted.) the. Bb wots
in ob, a meen on
os : ene - ce aw i
- edition ho aay ; on
ca cSt cur otha) bow
Arepunnit rm