WBONO0000169
WBON0000169
From: Anthony Grabiner
To: Andrew Parsons
Ce: David Cavend Gideon Cohen
Owain Di ; Amy Prime {
Beezer { David Neuberger
Subject: Re: Recusal judgement [WBDUK-AC.FID26896945]
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2019 14:58:10 +0000
Importance: Normal
Inline-Images: image001.png; image002.png; image003.png; imagel81b8d.PNG; imagec0c780.PNG;
image003136.PNG
Dear Andrew,
I haven’t downgraded anything. ‘Reasonable’ was not my word. I believe we have a strong case because the
Judge decided more than he should have done or was necessary for him to decide at the Common Issues
trial. He was asked on many occasions both before and during the trial to take great care not to trespass into
the territory of the future cases and I believe that he wrongly failed to heed that request. Many of his
observations are expressed as firm conclusions rather than cautious preliminary expressions of current
thinking and that point was not seriously challenged by the other side in the recusal hearing. If he had case
managed the litigation in a more disciplined way all this could have been avoided.
The latest recusal judgment is an aggressively strong defense by the Judge of his personal position. This is
not surprising. He dug himself into it in the first place and he’s now in the business of digging himself out.
The collective view of the team - having observed him during the trial - was that this is what he would do
and his refusal to recuse himself coupled with his refusal to give leave to appeal against that judgment was
predicted by the team. As previously explained I also believe that in all the circumstances Post Office has no
real alternative choice but to pursue appeals to the Court of Appeal against both the recusal and the Common
Issues judgments.
All that said, and as previously advised, I cannot give a guarantee of success in the Court of Appeal. There
are always risks associated with litigation. I think Lord Neuberger’s view on prospects should also be sought
by the clients.
Regards,
Tony
Lord Grabiner QC
One Essex Court,
Temple,
London, EC4Y 9AR
Teli
Mob f~
On 10 Apr 2019, at 13:06, Andrew Parsons
“)>> wrote:
Tony — do you have any comment on the question below? If you read up from the bottom of this short email
chain this should hopefully make sense.
Kind regards
Andy
WBD_000039.000001
WBONO0000169
WBON0000169
Andrew Parsons
Partner
Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP
Manage your e-alert preferences<https://www.womblebonddickinson.com/uk/preferences>
<image181b8d.PNG><http://>
womblebonddickinson.com<https://www.womblebonddickinson.com>
<imagec0c780.PNG><https://www.twitter.com/wbd_uk> <image003 136.PNG>
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/womble-bond-dickinson-uk-Ip/>
From: Jane MacLeod }
Sent: 10 April 2019 13:00
To: Andrew Parsons
Ce: Rodric Williams
Subject: RE: Recusal judgement [WBDU
GRO
GRO)
C-FID26896945]
p>
Hi Andy
Sorry to be petty — LGQC told me when I met him (feels like ages ago) that we had ‘strong grounds’ to bring
the application for recusal. When I challenged him on what our prospects of success were, he said (not an
exact quote ....) he wouldn’t say ‘strong grounds to bring the application’, unless there were strong prospects
of success .....
That now seems to be down graded to ‘reasonable’ .
to the Board why.
..If that is deliberate then I need to be able to explain
Sorry ..
From: Andrew Parsons} _ GRO.
Sent: 10 April 2019 11:23
To: Jane MacLeod I
Ce: Rodric Williams )
Subject: RE: Recusal judgement [WBDUK-AC.FID26896945]
Jane
Counsel's view on the prospects of success on appeal has not materially changed following the recusal
judgment. They continue to believe the appeal has a reasonable prospect of success. If anything, Fraser has
said a few things in the judgment that may even help demonstrate apparent bias.
WBD_000039.000002
WBONO0000169
WBON0000169
Kind regards
Andy
Andrew Parsons
Partner
Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP
grBe
Manage your e-alert preferences<https://www.womblebonddickinson.com/uk/preferences>
<image001.png><http://>
womblebonddickinson.com<https://www.womblebonddickinson.com>
<image002.png><https://www.twitter.com/wbd_uk>
From: Jane MacLeo
Sent: 10 April 2019 07:50
To: Andrew Parsons
Ce: Rodric Williams
Subject: Recusal judgement
Andy
Now that the Counsel team have had a chance to review yesterday’s judgment, is there anything in that
which changes their view of the prospects on appeal? I have been specifically asked this by the Board so an
early answer would be helpful!
Thanks
Jane
Jane MacLeod
Group Director Legal, Risk & Governance
fice
Js gS SASSI ASS EE ICES EGS GCI ISSIR IACI ACK AICI A CIR Aa aca a ocak ok oak
WBD_000039.000003
WBONO0000169
WBON0000169
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.
ASI ESE EI SISSIES ICICISIO I ICI ICC CIOR CCCI CA IR ACAI EAA AER ACA IK AAR EAC AR A A a
“Post Office Limited is committed to protecting your privacy. Information about how we do this can be
found on our website at www.postoffice.co.uk/privacy<http://www.postoffice.co.uk/privacy>”
Please consider the environment! Do you need to print this email?
protected by law. jane. macleod! ) 4 only is authorised
to access this e-mail and any attachments. If you are not
jane.macleod? ‘}, please notify
andrew.parson: s soon as possible and delete any
copies. Unauthorised use, dissemination, distribution, publication or copying of this communication or
attachments is prohibited and may be unlawful. Information about how we use personal data is in our
Privacy Policy<https://www.womblebonddickinson.com/uk/privacy-policy> on our website.
Any files attached to this e-mail will have been checked by us with virus detection software before
transmission. Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP accepts no liability for any loss or damage which may be
caused by software viruses and you should carry out your own virus checks before opening any attachment.
Content of this email which does not relate to the official business of Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP, is
neither given nor endorsed by it.
This email is sent by Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP which is a limited liability partnership registered
in England and Wales under number OC317661. Our registered office is 4 More London Riverside, London,
SEI 2AU, where a list of members’ names is open to inspection. We use the term partner to refer to a
member of the LLP, or an employee or consultant who is of equivalent standing. Our VAT registration
number is GB123393627.
Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP is a member of Womble Bond Dickinson (International) Limited, which
consists of independent and autonomous law firms providing services in the US, the UK, and elsewhere
around the world. Each Womble Bond Dickinson entity is a separate legal entity and is not responsible for
the acts or omissions of, nor can bind or obligate, another Womble Bond Dickinson entity. Womble Bond
Dickinson (International) Limited does not practice law. Please see
www.womblebonddickinson.com/legal<http://www.womblebonddickinson.com/legal> notices for further
details.
Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority.
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
WBD_000039.000004
WBONO0000169
WBON0000169
WOMBLE
BOND
DICKINSON
WOMBLE
BOND
DICKINSON
WBD_000039.000005