WBONO001002
WBON0001002
From: "Porter, Tom" +
To: "dave.m.king} GRO _ i
Subject: FW: IMPORTANT EMAIL PRESERVATION OF DOCUMENTS / HIGH COURT
LITIGATION [BD-4A.FID26859284]
Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 09:44:43 +0000
Importance: Normal
Attachments: Disclosure_of_documents_in_litigation.pdf; rodric.williams_20-04-2016_18-26-31.pdf
Inline-Images: image002.jpg; image003.jpg; image004.png; image001.png
Good afternoon Dave
I am a colleague of Andrew Parsons' in the Dispute Resolution team at Bond Dickinson.
I understand that you assisted Andrew, Kath Alexander and Shirley Hailstones with the Mediation Scheme
investigations.
As I'm sure you will know — certain sub postmasters have now issued a court claim against POL. As such POL now
has a duty to preserve all potentially relevant documents, related to the action.
On discussing this with Kath and Shirley they mentioned that I should get in touch with you. As set out in Rod's email
dated 20 April (below), Post Office is under a duty to preserve any documents (electronic or hard copy) that may be
relevant to the issues in dispute. I am hoping that you (and various others) might be able to help us work out:
What potentially relevant documents exist;
Where they are stored (and whether they are periodically backed up);
Who is the stakeholder/controller for those documents;
Is there a retention policy that affects those documents (that may result in them being lost unless otherwise
preserved); and
« What would we need to do to now protect and/or take copies of those documents.
I don't expect that you will have answers to all (or indeed any) of the above questions but, if possible, I would like to set
up a brief call with you to discuss issues more generally — such as the work you did with the investigations, which
departments interacted with the sub postmasters, any thoughts you may have on the types of documents that we
should be looking for etc.
Please could you let me know if you have any availability for a call this afternoon or later this week?
I look forward to hearing from you.
Kind regards
Tom Porter
Associate
Bord Dickingor
st GRO
Office:
Follow Bond Dickinson:
Blin
www.bonddickinson.com
WBD_000872.000001
WBONO001002
WBON0001002
From: Rodric Williams
Sent: 20 April 2016 22:53
To: Alwen Lyons Craig Tuthill; Lin Norbury {7 John
Breeden; Joe Connor; Hector Campbell; Angela Van-Den-Bogerd; Kathryn Alexander; Shirley Hailstones; Chris Broe;
Andy Garner; Julie George; John M Scott; Nick Beal !” JAnne Allaker
Cc: Jane MacLeod; Patrick Bourke; Mark Underwood) Neena Sharma; Lorraine Lynch; Piero D'Agostino; Jessica
Madron; Ben Foat; Elisa Lukas i
Subject: IMPORTANT EMAIL RE: PRESERVATION OF DOCUMENTS / HIGH COURT LITIGATION
IMPORTANT — PLEASE READ THIS MESSAGE IN ITS ENTIRETY. IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT ITS CONTENTS ARE COMPLIED
WITH.
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS IN RESPECT OF ITS CONTENTS OR EFFECT THEN PLEASE CONTACT ELISA LUKAS OR
RODRIC WILLIAMS IN LEGAL SERVICES.
As you may be aware, 91 mostly former postmasters have issued a High Court claim against Post Office Limited
advancing allegations about the Horizon IT system and Post Office’s engagement with them. A list of the 91
claimants is attached, and we have been told that others may join the claim in due course.
Now that Post Office has seen the claim, you and your team members must familiarise yourselves with Post
Office’s document disclosure obligations, and ensure that you comply with them. Please therefore circulate this
email to your team members who may hold documents related to the claimants and/or their claim.
In short, the three crucial document rules that must be followed are:
(1) You must not destroy or delete any documents which may be relevant to the claim. In particular, make
sure that any automatic deleting/archiving systems are suspended now until further notice. If you have
any question about whether a document is relevant, please contact Legal Services and preserve the
document in the meantime;
(2) You must not amend any existing documents which may be relevant to the claim. For example, do not
make handwritten notes on existing documents or try to change the content of a document; and
(3) You must recognise that any documents that you create from now on may have to be disclosed to the
other side in the case. If in any doubt, think about whether you would be happy for the email or document
to be read out loud in court.
I attach a more detailed note on this, which can be used as a reference going forward.
If you have any questions concerning these requirements, please contact Elisa Lukas or me for further guidance.
With thanks for your cooperation, Rodric
FAQs
1, What is a ‘document’?
Documents are defined very broadly to mean anything in which any information is recorded. Examples include:
emails, paper documents, handwritten notes, Word/Excel/PowerPoint documents (including draft versions of
these documents), database records, minutes of calls or meetings, text messages, internal memos, meeting
agendas or tape recordings.
2. What are ‘relevant’ documents?
Relevant documents are any documents that could: either support or undermine the case of any party to the
litigation.
WBD_000872.000002
WBONO001002
WBON0001002
lm
iS]
_GRO
Jobe bdjodgiiodoiioiininaieicocidiioiioliniipioioiietioiciciioicoinidialbioiaibieiisiaioisiciinisioloistio
This email and any attachments are confidential and intended for the addressee only. If you are not the
named recipient, you must not use, disclose, reproduce, copy or distribute the contents of this
communication. If you have received this in error, please contact the sender by reply email and then delete
this email from your system. Any views or opinions expressed within this email are solely those of the
sender, unless otherwise specifically stated.
POST OFFICE LIMITED is registered in England and Wales no 2154540. Registered Office: Finsbury
Dials, 20 Finsbury Street, London EC2Y 9AQ.
JS SSIS ISIE ISISISI CISC OGISIS ISIS I ICIS IGISISI I ICICI ICI SIO ICICISI OK IC ACI AA CIR CASI I CA HR
WBD_000872.000003