WBONO0000190
WBON0000190
From: Andrew Parsons {
To: Anthony de Garr Robinson
! GRO
Ce: Amy Prime! GRO i
Subject: RE: Post Office [BD-4A.FID26896945]
Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2017 19:42:58 +0000
Importance: Normal
Inline-Images: image001 jpg; image002.png; image003.png; image004.png; image92d385.JPG;
imagedd2a7b.PNG; imagec3392d.PNG; imagecd2c01.PNG
Tony
Your comments below are noted and agreed.
I'm happy with para 99.
On para 133/136, I'm comfortable saying something like: "At this stage, I would estimate that the cost to Post Office of
Freeths disclosure orders (including both generic and standard disclosure) would likely be between £1.5m - £3.5m,
and it would take at least 9 months, but may be as much as 15 months, to complete the exercise."
For the sake of completeness, the logic behind these numbers is below:
Cost of scoping and extracting documents from POL: £100k - £300k
Charges to POL from its IT suppliers: £100k - £300k
Advanced Discovery consultancy fees / hosting costs: £300k - £600k
Document review (assume 500,000 docs @ about £2 - £4 per doc): £1m -£2m
Listing documents, production of documents, negotiations and correspondence with Freeths: £100k - £300k
On para 150 — the Peak system wording was a hangover from an earlier draft and that idea has now been dropped. At
some point however, Freeths are going to ask for access to the Peak System.
On para 169, I think that limitation arguments only have case management benefit if they result in a Claimant being
struck out entirely or nearly entirely. If the limitation argument simply defeats a single claim (ie. personal injury) or part
of claim (ie. those claimants that straddle the limitation date), the Court will be less attracted to spending time on
limitation issues as they may still have to hear these claims nearly in full. I would prefer that we don't over-reach on
WBD_000060.000001
WBONO0000190
WBON0000190
this point. There are 200 claims that are, on face value, time barred, and if we can get rid of those 200 claims, that will
be a material blow to the Claimants as a whole (particularly as it will take out Bates). So my view is keep our sights
narrow and go for the strongest argument.
Andrew Parsons
Partner
Bond Dickinson LLP
Direct:
Mobile:
wosie! GRO
Follow Bond Dickinson:
www.bonddickinson.com
We are pleased to announce we will be changing our name to Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP on 1 November 2017:
A new-breed of — Cond Diclinger.
transatlantic law firm
WOMBLE
Find out mare 7 "i CARLYLE
From: Anthony de Garr Robinson [mailto:
Sent: 07 October 2017 15:46
To: Elisa Lukas; Owain Draper
Cc: Andrew Parsons; Amy Prime
Subject: RE: Post Office
Importance: High
Dear all,
I have some further amendments to the witness statement (which means that the para numbers have changed). It
would be a bit shorter, were it not for the fact that I’ve added dome additional points in. The most significant changes
are:
1. Paras 17-21: Having read the correspondence this morning, I now want the letters referred to in these paras in
our exhibit, since they set out our position quite well on the prejudicial issues that Freeths will probably be
pressing in their skeleton (delay, ambush ete and possibly also our RFI responses). By the way, I would
organise the exhibit by putting all the correspondence referred to in one place and in chronological order.
WBD_000060.000002
WBONO0000190
WBON0000190
2. Para 21: I have inserted a para noting the prior complaints about our RFI response and making it clear that we
are not dealing with it because they have given us every indication that they will not raise (if they do, we can
say that it is an ambush and we have enough wiggle room to put in more evidence on how impossible their
requests would be to answer, if we want to).
3. Para 27: In case we end up having to argue about SOs, let’s exhibit our best examples of the worst ones.
4, Paras 45 and 51: We know that, in their skeleton on Monday, they will go ballistic on how badly we have
behaved. Rather than trying to pre-empt this, I have inserted some drafting which (a) mildly makes the
common sense point that you can’t decide on how to manage issues until you know what the issues are, which
requires closure of pleadings — and the CMC was fixed on that very basis (para 45) and (b) takes the moral high
ground by roundly rejecting their criticisms and expressing the hope that they are not repeated (para 51).
5. Para 99: I have added to the points made about the difficulty of giving disclosure about bugs (the new point is
lifted from Elisa’s comment and needs to be checked by one who knows and corrected/beefed up, as
appropriate).
6. Paras 133 and 136: can we give an estimate of the costs and time required by their proposed order? If so, why
shouldn’t we?
7. Para 150: I’m not saying we shouldn't do it, but I am uneasy about offering new things for their expert to look
at, if that is what we are doing. Why are we doing so?
od
Para 169(1): see the question I ask here. Should we have included as potential time-barred claimants those
claimants who have personal injury claims who were terminated more than 3 years before their claim forms?
Or would that be something we can look at later, depending on how we get on with the 6 year time-barred
claimants?
Sorry for the extra work involved, but these changes are worth making.
Best wishes,
Tony
From: Elisa Lukas [mailto:
Sent: 06 October 2017 21:58
To: Anthony de Garr Robinson ¢
Ce: Andrew Parsons}.
Subject: RE: Post Office
+ Owain Draper {
j Amy Prime {
WBD_000060.000003
WBONO0000190
WBON0000190
Tony
Thanks for the amended draft. I've attached a tidied up version for you and a comparison to the draft you sent us.
We're now down to 39 pages.
Kind regards,
Elisa
Elisa Lukas
Solicitor
Bond Dickinson LLP
Direct:
mobile? GRO
Office:
Follow Bond Dickinson:
www.bonddickinson.com
We are pleased to announce we will be changing our name to Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP on 1 November 2017:
A new-breed of Goud Diclanger
transatlantic law firm
7 WOMBLE
Find out more > CARLYLE
From: Anthony de Garr Robinson [mailto:
Sent: 06 October 2017 17:02
To: Andrew Parsons; Owain Draper; Amy Prime; Elisa Lukas
Subject: RE: Post Office [BD-4A.FID26896945]
Dear all,
T enclose an amended draft witness statement. There is still some way to go, but we are getting there. As I was
drafting, I felt sure that I would shorten it to around 35 pages and, if I had not been under such time pressure, I believe
that I would have been able to do that, principally by shortening sections 3 and 4. Part of the problem is that once
section 3 starts talking about our order, it looks odd if it does not (1) summarise the order and (2) say at least
something about all the material terms. However, it only needs to address terms for which evidence is needed, which
is by no means all of them. If anyone is willing and has the energy to do some elegant drafting to box this circle, I
would be happy. But If anyone feels able to The structure of section 4 is a bit wonky and could probably do with some
better introductory wording, but it is time for someone with fresher and better eyes to have a go.
WBD_000060.000004
WBONO0000190
WBON0000190
I would like a chance to review a further version which addresses my various points. If it is not down to 38 or so
pages by then, we have done something wrong.
Best wishes,
Tony
From: Andrew Parsons [mailto: GRO. ]
Sent: 05 October 2017 19:55
To: Anthony de Garr Robinson {
___GRO § Elisa Lukas { GRO ~ T
Subject: RE: Post Office [BD-4A.FID26896945]
$ Amy Prime
Tony
Thanks.
Please find attached the revised section 2. I've been brutal in cutting it down — its gone from 27 pages to 17 pages.
I saved all Owain's changes and made my new changes in track changes.
Kind regards
Andy
Andrew Parsons
Partner
Bond Dickinson LLP
Follow Bond Dickinson:
WBD_000060.000005
WBONO0000190
WBON0000190
www.bonddickinson.com
We are pleased to announce we will be changing our name to Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP on 1 November 2017:
A new-breed of Cond Diclaager
transatlantic law firm
WOMBLE
Fd obt rove > CARLYLE
From: Anthony de Garr Robinson [mailto} een B
Sent: 05 October 2017 19:46
To: Owain Draper; Andrew Parsons; Amy Prime; Elisa Lukas
Subject: RE: Post Office
Dear all,
Here is where I have got to with Andy’s statement. It is slow going, because I am doing a lot of toning down and
shortening. I am too tired to finish section 1 tonight.
Best wishes,
Tony
From: Anthony de Garr Robinson.
Sent: 05 October 2017 1
To: Owain Draper {7
GRO. }
GRO } Lukas, Elisa
Subject: RE: Post Office
Importance: High
Dear all,
As discussed just now, here is the draft statement with Owain’s comments. You are in control of section 2, and I am in
control of the other sections.
Best wishes,
Tony
WBD_000060.000006
From: Owain Draper
Sent: 05 October 2017 11:10
To: Anthony de Garr Robinson {~
Subject: Post Office
Dear Tony,
Please find attached the fruits of my work last night and this morning.
Best,
Owain
Owain Draper
One Essex Court, Temple
EC4Y 9AR
Switchboard:
www.oeclaw.co.uk
WBONO0000190
WBON0000190
The content of this email is confidential and may subject to legal professional privilege. If you are not the
intended recipient, please delete it permanently and inform the sender.
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
Please consider the environment! Do you need to print this email?
WBD_000060.000007
WBONO0000190
WBON0000190
‘The information in this e-
y attachments is confidential and may be
only is authorised to access
gally privileged and protected by law. arobinsonf
please notify andrew.parsonsf as soon as possible and de!
Unauthorised use, dissemination, distribution, publication or copying of this communication or attachments is prohibited and may be unlawful
this e-mail and an;
iments. If you are not
Any files attached to this e-mail will have been checked by us with virus detection software before transmission, Bond Dickinson LLP accepts no liability fo
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 Bond Dickinson LLP, is neither
en nor endorsed by it,
This email is sent by Bond Dickinson LLP which is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales under number 0C317661. Our registered office is 4 More
London River ‘ondon, 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.
Bond Dickinson 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
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_000060.000008