WBONO0000329
WBON0000329
From: "Andrew Parsons" </O=-EXCHANGE-ORG/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE
GROUP
(FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=AD9ED3448 I SE47E4A AA3COE7E1 7409
19-ANDREW PARS>
GRO I
Subject: Ways of Working
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2017 13:01:13 -0000
Importance: Normal
James
I am writing this email to you personally in the hope of establishing a better way of working between our two firms.
This litigation is going to be long-running, complicated and contentious. It is inevitable that our clients will not agree on
many things and will, I suspect, need the Managing Judge’s assistance at times to resolve impasses between us.
Nevertheless, if we can find common ground as to the tone and objectives of interaction between the legal teams, this
litigation can be managed more constructively and smoothly, to the benefit of everyone and in line with our
responsibilities to the Court.
I set out below a few points that would assist me with running this litigation from the Post Office side. None of what I
say is intended as criticism of your firm or your clients. To the extent that I refer to things that, in my view, have not
gone well or have been unhelpful, I do so only to explain where things could be done differently so to improve ways of
working between us.
As a starting point, it would be good to acknowledge that just because the parties disagree that does not mean that
either is automatically being unconstructive or unreasonable. It may well be a fair disagreement and one we need to
work through together to see how much of the ground can be covered by pragmatic compromise. A factual and
rational explanation of the point in dispute, written in a neutral tone without seeking to lay blame, is likely to facilitate
our reaching a solution most quickly.
Since the CMC, we have sought more than ever to avoid point-scoring in our letters. I hope that, if you stand back and
review our recent letters, you'll acknowledge that the tone has been constructive, even if you disagree with the
proposals that we have made. I would be very grateful if your firm could adopt the same approach.
Another tension in this litigation is timing. We have been set a fast-paced timetable by the Court. We will both, at
times, have difficulties getting full instructions quickly or need to move matters forward quickly for reasons that might
not be immediately apparent. Flexibility will be needed on each side to help the other. I hope that we displayed this
when dealing with your recent correspondence in relation to bankrupt Claimants where we sought to turn around your
requests asap so that you might avoid the cost of having to issue another a separate Claim Form for these Claimants.
A point which causes difficulty at Post Office is when we are faced with only partial explanations or proposals. This is
a complicated piece of litigation, where even seemingly simple decisions need careful consideration and therefore
points need to be expressed clearly and more fully than might otherwise be the case. The more insight we can each
offer on our thinking, the quicker and better both our clients will be able to respond.
One of the greatest challenges is that there are parts of your clients' case that we still do not understand. I appreciate
that there may be parts of Post Office's case that you and/or your clients do not understand. Some of this is because
the claims are still evolving, though I do think that some of it is the lack of clarity in the way the Claimant's positions are
presented, which then only allows an imperfect response from Post Office. Wherever possible, I would ask that you be
forthcoming with as much information as possible about the claims being advanced. In return, we are seeking to
provide clarity on Post Office's position, and I hope that the extensive EDQ we have sent you reflects that.
It is perhaps unavoidable that the defendant to a large number of very different claims will sometimes be seen as
obstructive when, in reality, all that it is trying to achieve is to make sure that the litigation is conducted effectively and
fairly. It is not always the case that matters can be short-cut or streamlined, even where doing so would be of obvious
and understandable benefit to the Claimants. We have taken this view, in particular, in relation to the detail in the
pleadings and the SOls, including the requirement that any allegations of dishonesty or bad faith be properly
particularised. I hope that you will understand that Post Office must at times take a firm line on these kinds of issues
and that your clients will not perceive this as obstructiveness. A key step in reaching a more constructive and efficient
relationship is to at least start from an assumption that the other side is operating in good faith and is presenting
genuine concerns.
Finally, this litigation will of course require us all to think creatively, openly discuss ideas and be prepared to adopt
bespoke procedures. I'm glad that you have proposed a meeting around disclosure; I feel that our conversations have
WBD_000199.000001
WBONO0000329
WBON0000329
always resulted in productive ways forward. In my view, we must try to avoid slavishly following a standard litigation
process. Where the course of events needs changing for everyone's benefit, we should all be prepared to do this. I
have encouraged my team to pick up the phone instead of sending letters (and I hope your team feel able to do the
same) so that we collaborate more freely and quickly. We are always open to an innovative solution to any issue so as
to better fit the needs of managing Group Litigation on this scale, which requires a good deal more collaboration than
ordinary litigation if good progress and efficiency are to be maintained.
As always, I would be happy to discuss this further.
Kind regards
Andy
WBD_000199.000002