WBON0000434
WBON0000434
From: Anthony de Garr Robinson
To: "Parsons, Andrew" { GRO
Subject: RE: GLO Letter [BD-4A.FID26859284]
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2016 11:22:40 +0000
Importance: Normal
Inline-Images: image001 jpg; image002.jpg; image003.jpg
I’m happy to delete the underlined bits you want to delete and I agree with your reasons for wanting to delete
them.
I fully understand about victimisation. Let’s see what (if anything) the client is willing to live with and then discuss
next week.
I think we are getting there, by the way. I’m beginning to like the letter!
Tony
From: Parsons, Andrew [mailto; GRO i
Sent: 16 July 2016 12:19
To: Anthony de Garr Robinson
Subject: RE: GLO Letter [BD-4A.FID26859284]
Thanks Tony
This all looks good save for a couple of points.
I'm still slightly uncomfortable about 11.1.2 on victimisation. I think giving any form of concession will come back to
haunt us. We'll leave it in for now and then perhaps we can discuss next time we speak
Para 5.14 on training assistants, currently reads (emphasis added):
"As explained in Section 4, Post Office accepts it has a duty to offer training to postmasters. That offer has to be
accepted by Postmasters. It has no duty to train assistants where not requested by postmasters. As is clear from
Section 15, Clause 7 of the Standard Subpostmasters Agreement, responsibility for the training of assistants falls on
the postmaster."
I'm not sure this is correct or would be accepted by Post Office. I think Post Office would say that it has no obligation
to train assistants whatsoever. From an operational perspective, a duty to train assistants, even if it is conditional on a
request from the SPMR, could cause Post Office major difficulties. There are about 50,000 registered assistants using
Horizon and if POL suddenly had requests to train all of them, it would grind the business to a halt.
I'd like to delete the bit underlined in the above para. I'd also like to delete the reference to assistants in 4.35.2 —
underlined below.
"It is accepted that Post Office is required to provide (through the Helpline or otherwise) such technical advice
and support as would be necessary to enable a competent and diligent postmaster and/or a suitable,
competent and diligent assistant to operate the Horizon system sufficiently well to discharge the postmaster's
accounting and related obligations under the agreement."
Thoughts?
A
Andrew Parsons
Partner
Bind Didingow
WBD_000304.000001
WBON0000434
WBON0000434
ust. GRO I
Blin)
www.bonddickinson.com
From: Anthony de Garr Robinson [mailto;
Sent: 16 July 2016 10:14
To: Parsons, Andrew
Subject: RE: GLO Letter [BD-4A.FID26859284]
Importance: High
Dear Andy,
Here’s the letter.
You will see that I have tracked the changes since the version I sent you yesterday. You will also see some
comments on consistency of formatting etc at the beginning of the letter, and that the body of the letter has more
than a couple of changes (not least because I did a spellcheck this time). I hope that these changes don't cause
you any problems — the ones I would really like you not to leave out are in paras 22.1.3 and 6.34 and 11.1.2 (a
suggestion on victimisation which would make our lives easier). I have suggested some changes to sections 9-13
which I think make them better but are not crucial.
Best wishes,
Tony
From: Parsons, Andrew [mailto! GRO i
Sent: 16 July 2016 08:33 :
To: Anthony de Garr Robinson I
Thanks Tony.
Andrew Parsons
Partner
Bond Dickinson LLP
5
From: Anthony de Garr Robinson
Sent: 16/07/2016 07:58
To: Parsons, Andrew
Ce: Prime, Amy.
Subject: Re: GLO Letter [BD-4A.FID26859284]
Tam on my way into work and the first job on my list is to finish off my amendments to the last schedule. You should have it by
about 9 AM. I've made a couple of other very small changes to the main body of the letter for reasons which will be obvious when
you see it.
Best wishes,
Tony
Sent from my iPhone
On 16 Jul 2016, at 06:52, Parsons, Andrew!
wrote:
WBD_000304.000002
WBON0000434
WBON0000434
Tony
What's your plan for comments on the schedules?
I've spoken to POL. A few members of the team have put aside time tomorrow to review the letter so it would be good to get it out
to them later today.
Kind regards
‘Andy
Andrew Parsons
Partner
Bond Dickinson LLP
From: Anthony de Garr Robinson<mailto:
Sent: 15/07/2016 16:48
To: Parsons, Andrew<mailto:
Subject: RE: GLO Letter [BD-4A.FID26859284]
b; Loraine, Paul<mailt
Very good, I'll send them over later, having tracked the changes from the version I sent you earlier.
By the way, regarding the Willers v Gubbay case which I have referred to in the letter in the context of malicious prosecution, I see
that the case has already gone to the court of appeal and will I think be the subject of a judgment of the Supreme Court to be
handed down next Wednesday (see attached email). On any view, what I say about the case in the letter is not the last word and
the case will need to be reviewed before the letter is sent out.
Best wishes,
Tony
From: Parsons, Andrew [mailto!,
Sent: 15 July 2016 13:05
To: Anth de Garr Robi
GRO Loraine, Paul
GRO
Subject: RE: GLO Letter [BD-4A.FID26859284]
Tony
Thanks. We'll go through and work in your comments on sections 1-8, It would be good to get your comments on the schedules if
possible, even if that is later this afternoon.
Andy
Andrew Parsons
Partner
Follow Bond Dickinson:
<image002.jpg><https://twitter.com/Bond_Dickinson><image003.jpg><http://www.linkedin.com/company/3098928?trk=tyah>
www.bonddickinson.com<http://www.bonddickinson.com/>
From: Anthony de Garr Robinson [mailto
Sent: 15 July 2016 12:39
To: Parsons, Andrew; Readhead, Tiffany; Loraine, Paul
Subject: RE: GLO Letter [BD-4A.FID26859284]
Importance: High
Dear all,
Here is where I have got to with the letter, working too fast and without checking things, proofreading or even making a
WBD_000304.000003
WBON0000434
WBON0000434
spellcheck. I have just about got to the end of section 8, although my review of everything from section 7 was quite hurried.
Thave not looked at the remaining sections of the letter but I have looked at the schedules and have many proposed amendments
for them. They are not huge amendments but they will improve the quality and avoid some hostages to fortune. Do you want me
to klet you have them? If so, I will not be able to turn to that until after 3pm.
Let me know what you wat me to do. Please note that I expect to be out of circulation for almost the whole of the weekend and
much of the early part of next week. However, that may suit you!
Best wishes,
Tony
From: Parsons, Andrew [mailtof
Sent: 14 July 2016 15:19
To: Anthony de Garr Robinson { GRO
; Readhead, Tiffany
Ey Loraine, Paul
Subject: RE: GLO Letter [BD-4A.FID26859284]
Tony
You do your amendments first and then we'll feed in anything else we have.
A
Andrew Parsons
Partner
From: Anthony de Garr Robinso
Sent: 14/07/2016 14:59
To: Parsons, Andrew<1 “"f: Readhead,_
Tiffany<mailto:! GRO i: Loraine, Paul<mailtof
Subject: RE: GLO Letter [BD-4A.FID26859284]
I'm not sure the nature of the proceedings are key ~ the key point for us may be that the tort of abuse of the process (Crawford
does not call it malicious prosecution) requires bringing proceedings for a purpose other than the recovery of the money sought in
the proceedings, which is clearly not our case and which they do not even allege here.
Hold on, though — who’s currently in charge of the travelling draft?
From: Parsons, Andrew [mailt
Sent: 14 July 2016 14:46
>; Readhead, Tiffany
oraine, Paul
i GRO
[ ~____ GRO . !
Subject: RE: GLO Letter [BD-4A.FID26859284]
Tony
Iwas going to ignore it as they haven't put forward a case on this. May be we just add a footnote.
Paul, Would you mind addressing this point? I think you can only bring an MP claim for certain types of civil proceedings, not all
civil proceedings. Ask Amy, she might know the case law on this.
A
Andrew Parsons
From: Anthony de Garr Robinson<mailtof”
Sent: 14/07/2016 14:27
WBD_000304.000004
WBON0000434
WBON0000434
To: Readhead, Tiffany<mailto}
Ce: Parsons, Andrew<mailto:
Seaeres
Subject: RE: GLO Letter [B!
Thank you, Tiffany.
GRO
Andy, is anyone proposing to deal with their argument that we are liable for malicious prosecution in relation to the civil
proceedings we have brought? For this purpose, they are relying on Crawford Adjusters v Sagicor. Should the letter not be
addressing the point?
Tony
From: Readhead, Tiffany [mailto! GRO ° H
Sent: 14 July 2016 14:06
To: Anthony de Garr Robi
Ce: Parsons, Andrew 4 GRO. i
Subject: RE: GLO Letter [BD-4A FID26859284]
Afternoon
As requested, please find attached the updated version of the letter to Freeths.
Thanks
Tiff
Tiffany Readhead
Secretary
Bond Dickinson LLP
<image004.jpe>
Direct:
Office:
Follow Bond Dickinson:
<image005.jpg><https://twitter.com/Bond_Dickinson><image006.png><http://www.linkedin.com/company/3098928?trk=tyah>
www.bonddickinson.com<http://www.bonddickinson.com/>
<image007.jpg><https://www.exportingisgreat. gov.uk/>
From: Parsons, Andrew
Sent: 14 July 2016 13:44
To: Anthony de Garr Robinson
Ce: Readhead, Tiffany
Subject: RE: GLO Letter [BD-4A.FID26859284]
Tony
Forgot to say. The letter hasn't changed much. Some work has been done to the Heads of Claim section.
Tiff. When you're finished making those changes I gave you, please could you send Tony the updated letter.
A
Andrew Parsons
Partner
Bond Dickinson LLP
From: Anthony de Garr Robinson<mailtof
Sent: 14/07/2016 13:21
To: Parsons, Andrew<mailt
Ce: Porter, Tom<mailto:
Subject: RE: GLO Letter [BD-4A.FID26859284]
He’s promised me this afternoon, I’m going over the other parts of the letter you sent me with my pen and will have amendments
WBD_000304.000005
WBON0000434
WBON0000434
to many parts. Would lunchtime tomorrow be too late for you? Has the draft changed much since the version you sent to me?
Where are you dealing with the remote data alteration point?
From: Parsons, Andrew [mailto!
Sent: 14 July 2016 12:47 _
To: Anthony de Garr Robinson}
Ce: Porter, Tom { GRO __
Subject: RE: GLO Letter [BD-4A.F1D26859284]
Tony
Thanks.
We agree with your amendments. We'll tidy up the letter, chase down your questions and get this sent.
On the Comm Ct point, I agree that if this is to be even a viable option we need to do it in a transparent manner which means
setting it up in correspondence first.
Do you have an ETA on the sections you / Owain were amending on the LOR?
Kind regards
‘Andy
Andrew Parsons
Partner
Follow Bond Dickinson:
<image009,jpg><https://twitter,com/Bond_Dickinson><image010,jpg><http://www.linkedin,com/company/3098928?trk=tyah>
www.bonddickinson.com<http://www.bonddickinson.com/>
From: Anthony de Garr Robinson [mailto!
Sent: 14 July 2016 10:24
To: Parsons, Andrew
Ce: Porter, Tom
Subject: RE: GLO Letter [BD-4A.FID26859284]
Importance: High
Dear Andy,
Here are my suggestions for your letter. I hope they are self-explanatory. Given the time pressure, I have not rigorously gone
through the order to ensure that it all fits together on our case (that it should be in the commercial court etc).
Tom’s suggestion really is brilliant. However, if we suddenly made an application to the commercial court in an attempt to steal a
march on the other side, this would go down very badly with both courts. I have added some wording to the letter and have
amended the Order in ways that are designed to provoke an unequivocal response from Freeths that they will absolutely never
agree to transfer. If and when that happens, and depending on how they express themselves, we might have an opportunity to reply
by saying something like (1) the parties agree that there should be a GLO and it is now clear what the issues are because we’ve
served our letter of response, (2) it is also clear that we are never going to agree on forum, and that this is the most urgent issue,
and (3) we've considered how best to resolve that issue and it seems to us that the quickest and most appropriate procedure is
through an application for a GLO to be made by the commercial court, and (4) obviously, the claimants will not be making this
application but the defendant will and (5) the claimants can expect to receive the necessary papers shortly.
I’m more than a little concerned that this could end up rebounding on us, but let’s decide once we've sent our letter of response.
Best wishes,
Tony
From: Parsons, Andrew [mailto!
Sent: 13 July 2016 19:18 .
WBD_000304.000006
WBON0000434
WBON0000434
To: Anthony de Garr Robinson I
Ce: Porter, Tom {
Subject: GLO Letier [(BD-4A-FID26859384] ~~
Tony
Please find attached a draft letter to Freeths and an amended GLO for your comments.
Tom P came up with an interesting, if slightly mischievous, idea on the issue of moving matters to the Commercial Court. Both
Claimants and Defendants can apply for a GLO at any time, even before a Claim is issued or served. Post Office is therefore at
liberty to apply to the Commercial Court for a GLO. The fact that Freeths have issued in the QBD doesn't prohibit such an
application.
Therefore, rather than try to transfer the QBD Claim to the Commercial Court, we could simply make our own application to the
Commercial Court for a GLO (which would include the usual direction that all claims be moved to the Management Court ie. the
QBD claim would be moved to the Commercial Court).
Too mad or worth consideration?
Andy
Andrew Parsons
Partner
<image008,
Direct: }
bondickinson.com/>
Follow Bond Dickinson:
<image009.jpg><https://twitter.com/Bond_Dickinson><image0 1 0.jpg><http://www.inkedin.com/company/3098928?trk=tyah>
www.bonddickinson.com<http://www.bonddickinson.com/>
Please consider the environment! Do you need to print this email?
The information in this e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may be legally privileged and protected by law,
arobinson! GRO } only is authorised to access this e-mail and any attachments. If you
are not arobinso GRO >, please notify
andrew. parsot GRO ~ $ as 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.
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 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 Bond Dickinson LLP, is neither given 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 Riverside, London, SE1 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.
WBD_000304.000007
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:/Avww.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:/Avww.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
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:/Avww.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:/Avww.symanteccloud.com
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
WBON0000434
WBON0000434
WBD_000304.000008
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
WBON0000434
WBON0000434
WBD_000304.000009