WBONO000995
WBON0000995
From: "Parsons, Andrew"
To: "arobinson(¢
Ce:
‘smith¢
Subject: Bates v Post Office
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 07:15:53 +0100
Importance: Normal
Attachments: Subpostmaster_Contract_(1994).DOC; letter_to_bond_dickinson.pdf; annex.pdf;
Part_1_Report.PDF
Inline-Images: image001.jpg; image002.jpg; image003.jpg
Tony
Thanks for your time on Friday. I'm not sure if Rob has passed on POL's decision to you yet but, in short, they would
like to instruct you.
We're putting together some files of background documents for you. However, a couple of urgent points have come up
on which I should be grateful for your input — hence this email.
Urgent matters
To help with the points below, I've attached:
a) The standard subpostmaster contract (Section 12 is the key bit)
b) Second Sight's Part One Report - this sets out in a neutral fashion a description of how Post Office operates.
Although this is a Second Sight document, Post Office accepts that the matters described in this document are
broadly correct (which is a result of Bond Dickinson ghost writing large parts of this document on Second
Sight's behalf!)
1. Limitation
Given the age of the cases, there are clearly some limitation issues in these proceedings. Mainly the limitation
issues will be against the Claimants but, in a few cases, POL arguably has outstanding debt claims against
some postmasters. These debt claims arise from losses found in a postmaster's branch that the postmaster
has never repaid. Post Office has not yet decided whether to advance these debts as counterclaims.
As a general rule of thumb, we are taking the postmaster's termination date as the date from which limitation
runs. Theoretically, the start date could be sooner eg. if a loss accrued 2 months before termination, then
arguably time runs from the loss date and not the termination date. Often the loss date and termination date
are nearly the same as it is the discovery of a large loss that leads to an immediate termination.
Putting aside this nuance, the two cases below have, according to POL's records, outstanding debts to POL.
Both are cases that went through the Mediation Scheme but did not settle. Based on their termination dates,
their limitation deadlines are fast approaching. Post Office wishes to preserve its claims against these two
postmasters so that it at least has the option to advance them later.
The question on which I should be grateful for your thoughts is whether Freeths' Claim Form is sufficient to
stop the clock running on POL's debt claims? Or whether POL should be issuing protective proceedings of its
own? There are obviously risks in relying on the Freeths Claim Form, not least because they may never serve
it and if it is not served POL will lose its protection.
Would you mind giving this some thought and then perhaps we can discuss this afternoon? I
apologise for the short notice — if this is not possible, please say.
Name Termination Outstanding Conviction Notes
Date Debt
Pamela Stubbs I 08.06.10 £33,519 No Becomes Time Barred:
06.06.2016
WBD_000865.000001
WBONO000995
WBON0000995
Name Termination Outstanding Conviction Notes
Date Debt
Graham 28.05.10 £45,850 Yes Becomes Time Barred:
Howard 26.05.2016
the Applicant has
signed a letter of
undertaking promising
to repay it out of the “
proceeds of a sale of
her business premises
GLO issues
We have received the
attached letter from
Freeths regarding the issues they want covered by the GLO. They have invited us again to “agree in principle"
to the making of a GLO. Generally speaking, POL has no objection to a GLO (or any other sensible case
management step) — we are not looking to be obstructive. However, so far we have gently resisted agreeing
to a GLO on the grounds that the claims lack particulars and so we're not entirely sure what would be covered
by a GLO and what effect it would have.
I'm conscious that you're nowhere near yet close enough to the case to advise on the merits / scope of a GLO
but I'd just like to talk though how we should respond to Freeths so that we keep our options open until we've
settled on a wider plan of action.
General instructions
After we've tackled the above points, we'll get over to you a proper pack of background documents. Our aim is to give
you a flavour of the issues being faced by POL: from the broad attacks by the media / MP pressure through to the
micro matters that could be raised in any given case. The documents should be with you later this week.
I'd be grateful if you could review the documents with a view to advising on 3 points:
1. How to deal with GLO / procedural issues?
2. A tactical approach the whole litigation (eg. how to deal with limitation issues, criminal cases, etc).
3. A preliminary view on the merits / risks around the contractual / implied duty arguments (which I see as being
the foundation on which the rest of the litigation is founded).
Once, you've had a chance to consider, I'd be grateful if we could setup a conference in chambers with Post Office at
your earliest convenience next week.
I'm conscious that, even having read the documents, you will likely still have lots of questions. If that is the case, I
suggest that you and I just have a meeting / call sometime before the main conference and you can fire questions at
me (I've been working on this matter for 3 years so I have a fair amount of background knowledge in my head).
Kind regards
Andy
Andrew Parsons
Partner
Follow Bond Dickinson:
Blin)
www.bonddickinson.com
WBD_000865.000002