WBONO0000637
WBON0000637
From: Owain Draper
To: Andrew Parson:
Victoria Brook:
Ce: David Cavend
Subject: Re: Examination in chief
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2018 22:13:05 +0000
Importance: Normal
Inline-Images: image001.png; image002.png; image003.png
Sure — we will knock up some submissions tomorrow on this point.
The key points are (1) the manuals in all relevant periods make clear that amounts settled centrally can be
disputed and (2) the Lead Claimants did in fact settle centrally and dispute. Ultimately, therefore, the rules
were clear and the Lead Claimants acted consistently with having known the rules. Any suggestion now that
they did not know that they could dispute is self-serving and can be rejected. It is also worth noting that
many (perhaps even all) the LCs in fact admit to having known that they could dispute amounts that they
settled centrally (which is unsurprising given that they in fact did it).
There is also the even more basic point, which David has put to the witnesses: irrespective of the reason for
the shortfall or any dispute over it, it can never be honest to make a false statement subject to a declaration of
truth. We will say that even a sudden and unexplained shortfall of £20k could not justify false accounting —
the honest SPM in that circumstance simply accounts properly and throws up his hands, asking for help; he
does not lie to Post Office about the cash in the branch and hope that it never finds out.
I would be amazed if even this Judge were to say that false accounting was in some way justified. That
would be perverse, in the strict sense of that term. It is also completely irrelevant to the construction of the
contracts, although I agree that Green will try to rely on it! I imagine he may clash with the Judge on these
points in closing.
Kind Regards,
Owain
Owain Draper
One Essex Court, Temple
EC4Y 9AR
k/>
The content of this email is confidential and may subject to legal professional privilege. If you are not the
intended recipient, please delete it permanently and inform the sender.
From: Andrew Parsons
Date: Tuesday, 13 Nc
To: Gideon Cohen.<.
Robertson <
Mandy
>, Amy Prime ictoria Brooks
WBD_000507.000001
WBONO0000637
WBON0000637
Cc: David Cavender
Subject: RE: Examination in chief
P, Owain Draper
Please can you send me the draft submissions (or an outline) on point 2. We really need to nail this point
otherwise we risk our house of cards coming down as Green will say if SPMs can't dispute losses, then PO
forces them to put inaccurate things in their accounts, that justifies false accounting, it also means that they
cannot be held liable for what their accounts say (because those accounts are plainly inaccurate because they
can't dispute mistakes), thus the normal rules of agency cannot apply to SPMs and clauses 12.12 / 4.1 should
be construed as requiring PO to prove every loss in every account.
A
Andrew Parsons
Partner
Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP
andrew.parsonst ~~ GRO i
Stay informed: sign up to our e-alerts<https://www.womblebonddickinson.com/uk/preferences>
[Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP Logo]
womblebonddickinson.com<http://www.womblebonddickinson.com>
[Twitter Logo]<http://www.twitter.com/wbd_uk>
[LinkedIn Logo]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/womble-bond-dickinson-uk-IIp/>
Sent: 13 November 2018 21:44
To: Andrew Parsons; Dave Panaech; Mandy Robertson; Amy Prime; Victoria Brooks
Ce: David Cavender; Owain Draper
Subject: RE: Examination in chief
Thanks Andy.
On your first point, is that a question for evidence or for a possible amendment to the Defence? Owain, given
that it is Stubbs, you are probably better placed to take a view?
On the second point, we could pick that up with Angela, but might get a bit lengthy for XIC. My view is that
we have the material available to deal with this in submissions.
All best
WBD_000507.000002
WBONO0000637
WBON0000637
Gideon
Gideon Cohen
Barrister
One Essex Court
Temple
London EC4Y 9AR
hboard:
www.oeclaw.co.uk<http://www.oeclaw.co.uk>
The contents of this email are CONFIDENTIAL and may be PRIVILEGED. If you are not the intended
recipient, please telephone (~~ ind delete this email.
From: Andrew Parsons
Sent: 13 November 20 ‘i
To: Gideon Cohen; Dave Panaech; Mandy Robertson; Amy Prime; Victoria Brooks
Ce: David Cavender; Owain Draper
Subject: RE: Examination in chief
Gideon - These are fine.
Dave / Victoria — between you, please can you let the witnesses know the general nature of the questions
they will get.
Gideon - two other points.
1. What are we doing about the Stubbs defence that refers to docs from Paul Williams that Paul did not send?
This is not a problem with Paul's evidence but a mistake by the legal team in preparing the Defence so I
think we need to own up to this.
2. I'm really not comfortable that the Judge has a clear understanding of how SPMRs can dispute either
transactions corrections or end of trading period shortfalls. We could pick this up with Angela?
Thoughts?
A
Andrew Parsons
Partner
Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP
d:
WBD_000507.000003
WBONO0000637
WBON0000637
Stay informed: sign up to our e-alerts<https://www.womblebonddickinson.com/uk/preferences>
[Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP Logo]
womblebonddickinson.com<http://www.womblebonddickinson.com>
[Twitter Logo]<http:/Avww.twitter.com/wbd_uk> [LinkedIn Logo]
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/womble-bond-dickinson-uk-Ip/>
Sent: 13 November 2018 18:35
To: Dave Panaech; Mandy Robertson; Amy Prime
Cc: Andrew Parsons; David Cavender; Owain Draper
Subject: Examination in chief
All,
Please see attached the 2 documents we are currently intending to present as typo-corrections for our
witnesses.
There are a number of other points which will be canvassed in examination in chief rather than by written
correction, because they are (a) new evidence and/or (b) more involved than a typo correction. Currently, we
have questions for Beal (clarifying which hotline was 24 hr); Haworth (clarifying which checklist he used,
and mentioning the CoA for the Crossflatts branch); Trotter (explaining why he didn’t go through the
contract in his first interview with Dar); and Van Den Bogerd (giving figures on how many branches, both
generally and of the Cs in this case, are run by (a) companies and/or (b) multiples).
The additional points for examination in chief which arose today were for Longbottom (explaining the nature
of the 2 page balancing guide, and that it was not a replacement for the manuals) and Ridge (explaining that
there were 2 different Christines with different jobs).
Please let me know if there are any queries, internally or from the witnesses, on what will be covered.
Thanks
Gideon
Gideon Cohen
Barrister
One Essex Court
Temple
London EC4Y 9AR
WBD_000507.000004
WBONO0000637
WBON0000637
www.oeclaw.co.uk<http://www.oeclaw.co.uk><http://www.oeclaw.co.uk>
The contents of this email are CONFIDENTIAL and may be PRIVILEGED. If you are not the intended
recipient, please telephone (020) 7583 2000 and delete this email.
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
Please consider the environment! Do you need to print this email?
protected by law. ecohend
t gcohent_ Pp
“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. Information
about how we use personal data is in our Privacy
Policy<https://www.womblebonddickinson.com/uk/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 England and Wales under number OC317661. 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.
Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP is a member of Womble Bond Dickinson (International) Limited, which
consists of independent and autonomous law firms providing services in the US, the UK, and elsewhere
around the world. Each Womble Bond Dickinson entity is a separate legal entity and is not responsible for
the acts or omissions of, nor can bind or obligate, another Womble Bond Dickinson entity. Womble Bond
Dickinson (International) Limited does not practice law. Please see
www.womblebonddickinson.com/legal<http://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
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
WBD_000507.000005
WBONO0000637
WBON0000637
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
WOMBLE
BOND
DICKINSON
is) 4
WBD_000507.000006