WBONO000501
WBON0000501
From: Owain Draper GRO ig
}, Anthony de Garr Robinson
Subject: Defence
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2017 09:07:55 +0000
Importance: Normal
Dear Andy,
Thad a read through the Defence last night and this morning in order to consider our approach on a few of
the issues. In doing so, I came across some minor drafting points and/or typos and thought it would be worth
identifying these.
Para No. Point
9 Penultimate sentence — I don’t like the reference to Cs having not proven any other cause of
loss. Of course they have not yet proven it! I would use instead the words “let alone properly particularised”.
16 “excessively unlikely” should read “extremely unlikely”
16 Cs have not, I don’t think, accepted that there is no systemic error. They have confirmed that
they are not alleging such an error (and this is how it is pleaded later in the draft).
19 New sentence for “They are unfounded.
32(2) A stray “that” before “the Claimants”.
44 The first sentence has gone wrong.
69(2)(b) I think the reference should be to how the “losses”, rather than shortfall arose.
69(3) I think the words “may be bound” are a little too vague. I do not have an alternative to
propose other than to dump the passive voice and say “Post Office may hold SPMs to the accounts that they
signed off”.
WBD_000371.000001
95(4)
139(1)
139(3)
147
151
163
176
Best,
Owain
WBONO000501
WBON0000501
Missing “to” before “assist”.
I think the words “possible reasons for this” set the bar a bit low. Cs have always said it is
possible that a shortfall was caused by Horizon. Perhaps we could say “for the relevant
Subpostmaster to identify the likely cause or causes”
We should settle on a form of words for the concept of “impossible or impractical” and use it
every time the point arises. I prefer “impossible or excessively difficult”.
We usually refer to PO in the singular, so “Post Office is said to have taken....”.
Missing “in” before 2015.
Insert the words “of the relevant” before “Claimants seek to claim”.
Check for consistency in how we refer in shorthand to Transfield. I prefer “Transfield
Shipping v Mercator” for all references after the first full citation.
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
WBD_000371.000002