WBONO0000496
WBON0000496
Owain Draper
>, Elisa Lukas
Subject: RE: POL Defence [BD-4A.FID26896945]
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 18:40:07 +0000
Importance: High
Inline-Images: image001 jpg; image002.png; image003.png; image004.png
Dear Amy, Elisa and Andy,
Thanks for your sterling work in getting the draft Defence to us as and when promised: it would not have been easy, I
know.
I have a few queries about your drafting and would be greatly assisted by your answers, preferably during the first part
of tomorrow morning, if that is at all possible.
My questions are:
Page I — yellow text: what further work/drafting are you considering doing re- bankrupt claimants and criminal
conviction.
Para 29 — the distinct impression I get is that the claims asserted in the schedules of information are so badly
formulated or include such flawed reasoning that it is not safe for us to say how many claimants we have of any sort,
including temporary Sub-Postmasters, community Sub-Postmasters or any category of NTC Sub-Postmasters?
Para 31(3) — (a) would I be right in thinking that, on the claimant’s case, the only claimants with claims relating to
franchise companies are all guarantors of those companies? And (b) would I also be right in thinking that the only
“pure” director claimant is a director of a Subpostmaster company and so is probably making a claim as an Assistant?
Para 43(4) — her, we say that any shortfall can be settled centrally, whereas in para 39(5) say that TCs can only be
settled centrally if they are for £150 or more. Don't we have to be consistent in our approach and, if so, which
approach should we adopt — should we mention the £150 requirement or not?
Para 60- the more I think about it, the more I think that the whole of para 60 other than the first two sentences ought to
be deleted. Iam loathe to mention the mediation because it gives them an excuse for whinging about Second Sight
and, more fundamentally, what we seem to be saying in the subsequent sentences is that in the mediation all sorts of
allegations about remote access were being made in all sorts of different ways, and not just the Bracknell basement
way. This seems to give us no excuse for not having researched the problem properly before we said that remote
alteration was not possible. Do you agree?
Para 62(5) — the extra text you have added at the end of the para does not fit with the denial that precedes it adds
nothing. I wanted to say that we cannot conceive of a reason why a helpline operator would tell a Sub-Postmaster to
submit a false branch trading statement. As you have changed the text, I infer that you think we cannot or should not
say this, Is that right? If so, I will simply delete the second half of the para.
Para 115(1) — should we simply be admitting that we required guarantees for new companies?
Para 136 — why the additional reference to agency duties here? What duties are relevant t5o our demands for
payment?
Para 146(6) —I do not understand this plea. Para 106.8 does not have two sentences. Please explain what you are
trying to do here — what are you denying and in relation to what you are not denying what case are you putting
forward?
WBD_000366.000001
WBONO0000496
WBON0000496
Para 167 — why insert a reference to the estoppels and defences para (now para 185)? It seems a bit random to pick that
para amongst all the others, what am I missing?
Best wishes,
Tony
sentence
grateful if you ,
From: Amy Prime [mailt
Sent: 10 July 2017 08:14
To: Owain Draper ig
Cc: Andrew Parsons GRO iElisa Lukas <; GRO. ,
Subject: POL Defence [BD-4A.FID26896945]
; Anthony de Garr Robinson
Good morning Tony, Owain
Please find attached the draft defence (which incorporates the revisions circulated by Owain on 6 July) and a
comparison to the defence which was circulated by Tony on 4 July 2017.
Deloitte will be providing their feedback on the Defence during the course of today and we are finalising the "admitted
and averred" points and Supply of Goods and Services Act this morning.
If you need any further information or have any questions please let us know.
Kind regards
Amy
Amy Prime
Solicitor
Bond Dickinson LLP
Follow Bond Dickinson:
www.bonddickinson.com
A new-breed of Goud Dickingen.
transatlantic law firm
WOMBLE
Find out more > ‘ CARLYLE
Please consider the environment! Do you need to print this email?
nly is authorised to access
delete any copies.
The information inthis ei and any attachments is con aula be Iewally priviewed apd anual Ja probinso
this e- any attachments. If you are not arobinson{ "GRO __ please notify amy.primer¢ Tas soon as possibl
Unauthorised use, dissemination, distribution, publication oF copying of this communication or Me SHGG' PARA and maybe anlar
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
WBD_000366.000002
WBONO0000496
WBON0000496
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, 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
WBD_000366.000003