WBONO0000630
WBON0000630
From: Simon Henderson’
jonathan Gribben’
, Anthony de Garr Robinson
ndrew Parsons. < GRO h>, Katie Simmonds
RO , Lucy Bremner I_ wnnneGRO
Subject: RE: Today's call [WBDUK-AC.FID27032497]
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2018 09:32:17 +0000
Importance: Normal
Jonny
This is very useful but it does point to the fact that there is a great deal of evidence which Robert requires
which has not yet been allocated — and given the current reluctance from FJ this is a real concern.
Has the list been updated against the various references in Robert’s latest comments (i.e. his answers —
attached to your email to us of 29/10 @ 16.47, and Andy’s email to us of 30/10 @ 11.02 - to the queries
which Tony and I raised): there are frequent references in those notes to his desire for further evidence. I’m
sure that the great majority have already been raised by him but this is worth checking I think.
If it helps, I have picked up the following references:
In Robert’s “Responses to Comments on Summary of Opinions” the following para and comment id’s
contain some reference to a request or need for further evidence:
- Para 10/A4
- Para 25/A18
- Para 29/A20
- Para 31/821
- Para 31/S25
- Para 32/S27
- Para 32/$28
- Para 33/S31
- Para 34/ A32
- Para 35/ A34
- Para 35/ A35
- Para 66/ S59
- Para 82/ A63
WBD_000500.000001
WBONO0000630
WBON0000630
In Robert’s comments on our comments in “Analysis of KELs in the Coyne Report”:
- Comment R16
In Robert’s comments on our comments in “Alternative Formulation of the Main Analysis”:
- Comment R19
In Robert’s comments on our comments in “Financial Impact of All Bug — Main Analysis”:
- Comment R6
It would be well worth someone trying to check off these items against the list — as I say I’m sure the
majority are there but it would be very easy for some to have been missed.
Best
Simon
From: Jonathan Gribben [mailto
Sent: 31 October 2018 08:01
To: Anthony de Garr Robinson <j
4 GR
Ce: Andrew Parsons >; Katie Simmonds
Lucy Bremner <~ ichael Wharton ¢ GRO i
Subject: RE: Today's calf [WBDUK-AC#ID27032497] ~
Dear Tony,
I wouldn't describe it as simple, but here is an updated version of the table which catches all of the points referred to in
your email of 26/10. It has been updated by my colleague Michael and the notes are mine based on an initial pass of
the document.
Any objections to me sharing this with Robert in advance of the con?
Kind regards
Jonny
Jonathan Gribben
Managing Associate
Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP.
WBD_000500.000002
WBONO0000630
WBON0000630
‘Stay informed: sign up to our e-alerts
WOMBLE womblebonddickinson.com
BOND
DICKINSON tin)
Simon Henderson
4 Pump Court, Temple, London, EC4Y 7AN I www.4pumpcourt.com
Follow us on twitter @4PumpCourt
Connect with us on Linkedin
Pump Court International I www.pumpcourtinternational.com
Terms of Work: Barristers at 4 Pump Court carry out services on 4 Pump Court Terms, which are available on our website,
unless otherwise agreed in writing. I View Terms
Privacy: Your attention is drawn to our Privacy Notice in relation to any personal data that we may obtain and/or otherwise
process about you. I View Privacy Notice
Notice of Confidentiality and Privilege: This email (including attachments) is confidential to the addressee, and may be subject
to legal professional privilege. If you are not the addressee, you must not copy, distribute or otherwise use it or any information
contained in this email. Please delete it, and destroy all copies
From: Anthony de Garr Robinson [mailto?
Sent: 30 October 2018 14:30
To: Jonathan Gribben; ‘Simon Henderson
Cc: Andrew Parsons; Katie Simmonds; Lucy Bremner
Subject: RE: Today's call [WBDUK-AC.FID27032497]
Dear Jonny,
Do you have a simple list of the issues on which we are proposing to prepare evidence — which identifies all
the issues on which Rob has requested evidence? Your table of 27/10 does not seem to do that. Incidentally,
does it definitely cover all the paras from Coyne that anyone has suggested that we need to deal with?
Best wishes,
WBD_000500.000003
WBONO0000630
WBON0000630
Tony
From: Jonathan Gribben!
Sent: 27 October 2018 12:29
: Anthony de Garr Robinson j >; 'Simon Henderson
GRO i
‘>; Katie Simmonds <}
Ce: Andrew Pai {
Lucy Bremner <
Subject: RE: Today's call [WBDUK-AC.FID27032497]
Dear Tony,
Thank you for your comments — I have passed them on to Robert.
The process for deleting KELs is set out in “SVM/SDM/PRO/0875 End to End Application Support Strategy” section
11.2.5 “KEL deletion” and “SVM/SDM/STP/3289 Terms of Reference for POA KEL Approval Forum” which includes in
its remit, section 1.1: “That issue, time or service expired KEL’s are retired or archived (deactivated)”. Those
documents have been disclosed, but we don't know if Coyne has read them. We are exploring whether FJ can
retrieve the deleted KELs.
I've attached the current version of our witness evidence plan. We will update it on Monday to catch anything in the
documents you refer to below that isn't already covered.
Kind regards
Jonny
Jonathan Gribben
Managing Associate
Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP
‘Stay informed: sign up to our e-alerts
WOMBLE womblebonddickinson.com
BOND
DICKINSON v0
From: Anthony de Garr Robinson [mailto! _ GRO H
Sent: 26 October 2018 15:34 .
To: Jonathan Gribben; 'Simon Henderson I.
Cc: Andrew Parsons; Katie Simmonds; Lucy Bremner
Subject: RE: Today's call [WBDUK-AC.FID27032497]
WBD_000500.000004
WBONO0000630
WBON0000630
Dear Jonny,
Further to my email of last night with my and Simon’s comments on Rob’s updated summary of opinions, I
enclose our comments on the following documents:
1. Rob’s alternative formulation of the main analysis.
2. Rob’s analysis of KELs in the Coyne report.
3. Rob’s financial impact of all bugs v3.
lam troubled to discover that all records for some KELs have been destroyed (and I see that Rob is, too).
Not only does it suggest a distressingly casual approach to maintaining the system, it also seems to
undermine at least some of Rob’s quantitative analyses. It is far from ideal that those analysis already
depend on some important assumptions that could be said to be arbitrary. If the destroyed KELs problem
requires further such assumptions to be made, these analyses will be even easier to attack. On top of these
difficulties, I worry that we are only discovering that KELs have been destroyed now and that, even now,
Coyne may not know about this. Is that the position?
We will no doubt be discussing this next week.
A further important question that arises from Rob’s documents is whether Rob has properly considered
whether and to what extent the points that he derives from the documents he has seen in fact require witness
or other evidence to substantiate them. This is not an easy thing for an expert to do: it is usually what
litigators are for.
If we had time, we would wait and see what Rob’s final report is going to look like, we would identify the
various factual inferences and assumptions on which it is based and we would then work out whether the
existing documents bearing on those assumptions and inferences are sufficient to demonstrate their veracity
or whether further evidence is needed to substantiate them (whether in the form of witness evidence or
further disclosure). However, we do not have time to do this. This makes us more dependent on Rob’s
judgments on these questions than we would like to be.
These judgments are hard for Rob to make and, given the relatively small amount of Coyne paras which Rob
has identified as requiring evidence (in his further evidence required document), I think it would be helpful
for someone to draw up a table briefly identifying the issues on which anyone thinks that evidence may be
required. That table could then be used as the basis for a discussion with Rob early next week.
Could someone at WBD produce the first draft? In the first instance, that person could produce a table
which organises in a coherent way and briefly describes the issues covered by the following references or
paras:
1. all references to “evidence” in the documents attached to this email and to my email of yesterday
(including in particular the references in the comments Simon and I have added to those documents);
2. all the Coyne paras referred to in Rob’s document entitled “further evidence required”; and
WBD_000500.000005
WBONO0000630
WBON0000630
3. the following additional Coyne paras: 3.6 last sentence, 3.16 last sentence, 3.21 last sentence, 3.23 last
sentence, 3.24 first sentence, 5.11, 5.27, 5.30 last sentence, 5.40, 5.75, 5.76, 5.113, 5.176, 5.180,
5.183, 5.185, 6.3-4, 6.47, 6.64 second sentence, 6.65 first sentence, 6.66 last sentence, 6.68, 6.69, 6.71
first sentence, 7.1, 7.28, 7.31, 7.36-7, 7.41 first and second sentences, 7.42, 8.21, 9.10, 9.17, 9.22,
9.25, 9.44, 9.61, 9.67, 9.70 last sentence, 9.71, 9.72 and 9.73
This will be a laborious job but if done with intelligence and concision it could save the whole team a great
deal of time and considerably improve the quality of the decisions ultimately made as to the evidence we
should serve. Needless to say, the table would not address the quandary we face in relation to the lead
claimants’ evidence for the common issues trial (other than Stubbs’ evidence of kiosk operations problems
referred to in Coyne para 5.27). In relation to that evidence, I share Simon’s view that it would be difficult to
make any decision until we know what we have seen all the evidence that Post Office can call on all the
difficulties the lead claimants say they faced when operating their branches.
Best wishes,
Tony
From: Anthony de Garr Robinson
Simon Henderson
GRO. 4
Katie Simmonds +
Lucy Bremner {*
GRO
Subject: RE: Today's Call [WBDUK-AC-F1D 27032497]
Dear Jonny,
Tenclose Rob’s updated summary of opinions, with comments both from Simon and from me. Simon’s
comments are all short, to the point and well made. Mine are more discursive, less narrow and some of them
probably proceed on the basis of some misconceptions on my part. The idea is to make Rob aware of
possible lines of attack and to get him thinking about how to deal with them — perhaps with more
documentary or witness evidence.
The points on which I would most welcome Rob’s thoughts are those I raises in AdGR4, 9, 17, 26, 29, 50
and 69. I’d also be very interested to know his answers to the questions I pose in AdGR 25, 38, 40 and 41.
I will let you have comments on Rob’s other documents tomorrow.
I wonder whether it would be helpful for Rob and us to have a telecon about our comments early next week,
before Rob finalises and releases his sections 7 and 8?
WBD_000500.000006
WBONO0000630
WBON0000630
Best wishes,
Tony
1 [WBDUK-AC.FID27032497]
Lucy Bremner ¢_
Subject: RE: Today's c:
Tony, Simon,
Please find attached:-
. further evidence that Robert has requested following on from JC's report
I. an updated summary of opinions (will be section 2 of his report), which contains this new material (you were
requested with an earlier version of this under cover of my email below):
a. In 1.2.5, a first answer to your request for the impact of Horizon bugs on an individual claimant; and
b. In 1.6, Robert's initial response to Coyne's report, and his approach to writing this report or deferring to
the supplemental report;
. an alternative way to present the main analysis, which is planned to be section 8.4 - after the presentation you
already have — and a request for additional evidence in relation to that analysis; and
4. Robert's preliminary analysis of the KELs cited by Coyne.
N
w
Robert is keen to receive feedback on the attached, either by email or on a call. Please would you let me know which
you'd prefer and when you're free.
Kind regards
Jonny
Jonathan Gribben
Managing Associate
Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP.
‘Stay informed: sign up to our e-alerts
womblebonddickinson.com
WBD_000500.000007
WBONO0000630
WBON0000630
WOMBLE vy in]
BOND
DICKINSON
From: Jonathan Gribben
Sent: 18 October 2018 11:29 ,
To: Anthony de Garr Robinson {e-
Cc: Andrew Parsons a ),\-
Subject: Today's call [WBDUK-AC.FID27032497]
sree Simon Henderson I
; Katie Simmonds
Tony, Simon,
Please find attached:-
1. a paper clarifying Robert's previous analysis of the financial impact of Horizon bugs that he has produced
following our call on 21 Septembe
2. Robert's current summary of opinions section 2 , to provide context to assess the note on the main analysis of
bugs; and
3. an updated version of our table about the references to Horizon issues in the Claimants’ witness evidence with
a new column noting references to those issues in Coyne's report.
While the focus of today's call is Coyne's report it would be useful to cover the impact of bugs analysis if we have time.
Kind regards
Jonny
Please consider the environment! Do you need to print this email?
arobinsond,.... SRO. ...} only is authorised to access
s soon as possible and delete any copies,
ail and any attachments is confidential and may be legally privileged and protecte
this e-mail and any attachments. If you are not arobinson{” please notify jonathan, gribben}. GRO.
Unauthorised use, dissemination, distribution, publication or copying of this communication or attachments is prohibited and may be unlawful. Information about how we use
The information in this e-
personal data is in our Privacy Policy on our website.
Any files attached to this e-mail will have been checked by us with virus detection software before transmission. Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) 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 Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP, is neither given nor endorsed by it
This email is sent by Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP which is a limited liability partnership registered in En nd Wales under mi
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 r
employee or consultant who is of equivalent standing. Our VAT registration number is GB12339362
+r OC317661. Our registered
sto a member of the LLP, or an
ember of Womble Bond Dickinson (Intemational) Limited, which ct
round the world. Each Womble Bond Dickinson entity isa se
jother Womble Bond Dickinson entity. Womble Bond Dickinson (International) Limited does not practice law. Please see
ists of independent and autonomous law firms providing
al entity and is not responsible
the acts or omissions of
nor can bind or obi
www.womblebonddickinson.com/legal notices for further details.
Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) 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
WBD_000500.000008
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
WBONO0000630
WBON0000630
WBD_000500.000009