WBON0001194
WBON0001194
www.bonddickinson.com
1 September 2017 Bond Dickinson LLP
Third Letter
For the Attention of Mr J Hartley
Freeths LLP
Floor 3
100 Wellington Street
Leeds
West Yorkshire
LS1 4LT
By email only
Emai
Dear Sirs
james.hartley. GRO _imogen.randali
Oceana House
39-49 Commercial Road
Southampton,
S015 1GA
andrew parsons
Direct: 4
Our ref.
AP6/AP6/364065.1369
Your ref:
JXH/1684/2113618/1 /KL.
GRO
The Post Office Group Litigation
Claim Numbers: HQ16X01238 and HQ17X02637
Schedules of Information
1.1 We write to express our serious concerns about the Schedules of Information (SOls) you
provided on 20 June 2017 and to seek your cooperation in dealing with the problems they are
creating.
1.2 The purpose of the SOls was to provide our client, your clients and the Court with a sufficient
understanding of the nature and features of the claims being brought against our client to enable
effective decisions to be made regarding the management of those claims. The SOls so far
provided do not achieve this purpose and we fear that this will also be true of the remaining SOls
due to be served by 6 September 2017.
1.3 The SOls provided so far raise many difficulties, including:
1.3.1
A number of them are contradictory, in the sense that they assert claims / give details
which are inconsistent with other claims / details in the same SOI, or which are
inconsistent with the claims / details alleged in your clients’ Amended Generic
Particulars of Claim (Amended GPOC).
Imprecise and/or evasive language is used which makes it very difficult and in some
cases impossible to make sense of what is being claimed.
In response to many questions in the SOls, no relevant details are provided at all and,
insofar as any details are provided, they are often provided with such brevity that they
are of little or no help in understanding the essential features of the claims asserted.
In this regard, we note that 88 of the original 198 Claimants participated in the
mediation scheme and have therefore had professional advice, a Post Office
investigation report and a Second Sight report on their cases. But even in their SOls,
the details provided are grossly inadequate. Post Office is therefore left not knowing
whether these Claimants are asserting the claims they raised in the mediation scheme
or different claims raising different issues.
Bond Dickinson LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales under number OC317661. VAT registration number is
GB123393627. Registered office: 4 More London Riverside, London, SE1 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. Bond Dickinson LLP is authorised and
regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority
4A_36701701_2
WBD_001064.000001
21
2.2
2.3
24
WBON0001194
WBON0001194
1.3.4 In many cases, inadequate or no information has been provided on critical issues such
as false accounting, deceit, concealment, harassment, duress or unconscionable
dealing. This is despite the Amended GPOC relying heavily on the concept that Post
Office behaved oppressively; a theme that runs through all your correspondence with
this firm.
1.3.5 It was intended that the SOls would provide Post Office with a fair indication of the
value of most of the Claimants' claims and thus a fair idea of the total value of their
claims. From the SOls provided, it is not possible to ascertain even approximate claim
values.
We infer from these problems that the SOls may have been produced with little or no input from,
or even review by, your firm. Whether this is the case or not, they are inexcusable. The SOls
are not a mere formality but are important documents and we cannot see how they assist the
Court when they are produced in an evasive, imprecise or inconsistent way. By paragraphs 26
and 27 of the GLO, each Claimant was required to submit an SOI which clearly answered the
questions asked, provided the details specified in Schedule 3 to the GLO and to confirm their
answers and details by a signed Statement of Truth. The primary objective of these requirements
was to make it possible for everyone to understand the nature of the claims being brought, the
essential features of those claims and the amounts being claimed.
The expectation was that, armed with this understanding, the parties and the Court should be
able to organise the claims into classes which can reliably be said to have sufficient similarities
that they can be managed together (e.g. by identifying lead Claimants whose claims are
representative of a relevant class and/or by identifying common issues raised by such claims
which can be disposed of). Further, they should enable the parties and the Court to determine
what directions or procedures would be appropriate for particular claims or issues, having regard
to the amounts which turn on those claims or issues (i.e. the total quantum of the claims which
depend on a particular sort of claim or issue being decided in the relevant Claimants’ favour).
With the SOls so far produced, neither of these things is possible. To its consternation, Post
Office cannot even assess the broad scale of the amounts claimed by the original Claimants.
Nor can it categorise the Claimants into groups. This will hamper both parties' and the Court's
effort in making effective, proportionate case management decisions.
In order to illustrate these points, we set out below some examples of the problems we have
encountered with the SOls provided, addressed in the order in which the relevant requirements
are imposed in Schedule 3 to the GLO rather than in order of importance. We emphasise that
they are just examples.
Question 1.3
Each Claimant was required to provide details of each branch associated with their claims. Fora
number of Claimants the details provided are not consistent with the Group Register. For
example, the SOI of Carol Bains (13) confirms that she is the postmistress at 66-68 Whinney
Lane however, the Group Register additionally includes details of her appointment at the
Featherstone Post Office between October 2012 and November 2016. Post Office therefore
does not know whether Carol Bains is bringing claims against Post Office in relation to one or two
branches.
A similar issue can also be seen in the SOls of David John Gilbert (63) and Momonah Khan (98).
This issue will create a problem when it comes to disclosure as Post Office's records are in part
organised by branch and therefore unless Post Office knows which branches are affected and
during which periods, disclosure cannot be given.
The Group Register and SO! must be consistent with each other. This requires either an
amendment to the Group Register or to the SOls.
4A_36701701_2 2
WBD_001064.000002
3.1
3.2
3.3
41
42
43
5.1
WBON0001194
WBON0001194
Question 1.5
Question 1.5 required the Claimants to identify the contracts on which their claims were based.
For the majority of the Claimants, the SOls are qualified by the wording "pending access to any
contractual document and records that Post Office may hold...". However, back in April 2017,
Post Office disclosed contractual documents for 140 of the original 198 Claimants (it has not
located documents for the other 58). Wording of this sort is wholly inappropriate for Claimants
whose contractual documents have been disclosed.
Further, the contractual documents which Post Office has disclosed do not appear to have been
taken into account in the preparation of the SOls. By way of example:
3.2.1 Paula Gorman (64) recalls in her SOI signing an Acknowledgment of Appointment on
2 March 2011 and Conditions of Appointment on 31 January 2011. In addition to
these, Post Office also disclosed Ms Gorman's termination request letter and Mains
Agreement which were signed on 28 February 2013. No mention of Ms Gorman being
engaged by Post Office on a Mains Agreement is made in her SOI.
3.2.2 Post Office disclosed the following in relation to Sally Grahams (67):
(a) Assigned Acknowledgement of Appointment showing she was engaged on the
Subpostmaster Contract dated 28 May 2010.
(b) A termination letter dated 12 February 2013.
(c) AMains Agreement dated 12 February 2013.
Despite being provided with her contractual documents her SOI states "/ commenced
in 2010 but do not recall signing any contractual documents prior to or at that time. I
believe I entered into a Franchise Agreement on or around 13 March 2013...".
These answers are worrying. You have sent many letters demanding early disclosure from our
client, and in response our client has gone to significant trouble and expense in disclosing
relevant documents. The contractual documents were disclosed 10 weeks before the SOls were
served. However, it appears that, when compiling the SOls, neither you nor your clients even
looked at them.
Questions 1.7 & 1.8
Question 1.7 required the Claimants to state the end date of their engagements. As you know,
this could have an important bearing on limitation, a significant issue in this case. However,
some Claimants have not specified dates, either sufficiently or at all.
For example, Dr Saifudin Kutianawala (106) does not state a date on which his appointment at
the Ardwick Branch ended and, while Damian Peter Owen (128) states that his contract was
terminated in "August 2070", his claim may or may not be time-barred depending on whether this
termination was on or after 3 August 2010, 6 years before his claim was deemed issued (as per
the Consent Order dated 14 February 2017).
Further, we note that Claimants Aslam Ramtoola (144), Michael Rudkin (156) and Rachell Anne
Williams (193) state at section 1.7 that their engagement with Post Office has been terminated,
yet also state at question 1.8 that they are currently employed / engaged by Post Office. This is
further evidence of a lack of care in preparing the SOls.
Questions 2.2 & 2.3
These questions were designed to draw out the aspects of the training provided by Post Office
about which a complaint is made. The Claimants were required to provide the date and brief
details of the training which was either inadequate or inappropriate. Three problems have been
encountered with the SOls so far provided.
4A_36701701_2 3
WBD_001064.000003
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
WBON0001194
WBON0001194
First, in the majority of the SOls, a date for the relevant training has not been provided. Although
we appreciate that Claimants who were engaged with Post Office a long time ago may not be
able to provide exact dates, we would expect even these Claimants to have indicated an
approximate period.
Second, many of the SOls are lacking any information on the aspects of Post Office's training
alleged to be inadequate. They simply refer in general terms to the training provided. However,
these sections required the Claimants to identify the training that was inadequate. To assert
these claims the Claimants must know and be able to articulate what was inadequate. We note
that your clients will have first-hand knowledge of the training which was provided to them and
the areas on which they felt that the training was inadequate. Therefore, this is not an area
dependent on disclosure from Post Office. Although several Claimants mention that the training
was inadequate, they do not say how it was inadequate.
Post Office is therefore left not knowing which elements of the training were inadequate or how
this affected the relevant Claimant's ability to operate a branch or follow Post Office procedures.
Examples of this problem can be found in the SOls of Claimants Marion Drydale (55),
Kamaleswaren Kunabalasingam (105) and Mohammad Sabir (157).
Third, some Claimants have asserted a claim for training in section 7.1(i) but have stated in
sections 2.2 and 2.3 that they felt adequately trained. For example:
5.5.1 Bashir Choglay (43) asserts a claim for inadequate training but states "/ felt the training
was intense because there was a lot of information to absorb but I managed".
5.5.2 Megan Robinson (155) asserts a claim for inadequate training but states "/ felt that
after the training, I was competent and understood how to operate [Horizon]."
Again, these contradictory answers reflect a lack of care in preparing the SOls. Post Office is left
not knowing what is actually being asserted in relation to training, or even whether a claim is
being asserted at all.
Question 2.4
Question 2.4 was intended to provide Post Office with information regarding the interactions
which the Claimants had with the helpline, including the date and brief details of any advice given
that is alleged to be inadequate or inappropriate. We note that your clients will have first-hand
knowledge of advice that was provided to them and therefore this is not an area dependent on
disclosure from Post Office.
The majority of the Claimants' SOls do not provide the dates on which they allege inadequate /
inappropriate advice was given. They also appear to treat the advice provided by the helpline as
having been given throughout the entirety of a Claimant's engagement rather than on particular
occasions and in relation to particular matters, as would have been the case. This is a critical
omission as without this information Post Office cannot ascertain when the Claimant is claiming
that deficient advice is alleged to have been given by helpline staff, or how the advice is said to
be deficient. Therefore, Post Office cannot understand the case it is being asked to meet.
Further, when some details are provided they are often vague, with many of the Claimants stating
that the helpline staff were either unhelpful or were of not much use, but no further details of the
specific advice provided (or not) have been given or details of the matter in relation to which
advice was sought.
Based on the Amended GPOC, we had expected that a portion — for all we know a large portion -
of the deceit claims asserted by the Claimants relate to advice allegedly given by the helpline.
But neither we nor our client have any way of knowing whether this is the case or not. We had
expected that we would be able to identify the statements or advice provided by Post Office that
was alleged to be wrong and thus understand the areas that might be subject to allegations of
deceit. However, the SOls so far provided give few clues as to the basis of any of the Claimants’
4A_36701701_2 4
WBD_001064.000004
7A
7.2
7.3
74
75
WBON0001194
WBON0001194
allegations of deceit. They therefore do not assist Post Office to understand the case it is being
asked to meet or enable the parties to identify common issues.
Question 3.1(d)
Question 3.1(d) requires each Claimant to confirm how they accounted for each shortfall (in their
branch) of which they raise a complaint. The purpose of this requirement was to draw from the
Claimants whether they had signed off accounts which included the shortfalls whose existence
they are now seeking to dispute. As can be seen from the Amended GPOC and the Generic
Defence, this is a central issue in this case. For example, it is a major focus of the Claimants’
economic duress claim (as Senior Master Fontaine noted, see paragraph 1440 of the GLO
hearing transcript).
In many of the SOls, the answers provided do not achieve this purpose. Nor are they consistent.
For example:
7.2.1 The SO! for Amir Khan (97) explains that he settled centrally two shortfalls in August
2007 and November 2007, however his response to (d) is "/ did not know about the
shortfall until was demanded of me". This answer is confusing, in that he claims to
have settled the shortfalls centrally which means he must have signed off the branch
accounts including the shortfalls as they could not have been settled centrally
otherwise.
7.2.2 The SO! for Peter Holloway (74) explains that there was a shortfall of £2,548.09 on 12
November 2007 and that deductions were taken from his "salary" for this sum. In
response to (d) Mr Holloway states "/ received a letter dated 12 November 2007
stating that I had an outstanding debt of £2548.09. It did not explain how the loss was
incurred. As stated above I repaid this sum." His response does not indicate the
treatment of the shortfall in the branch accounts as required. We infer from the fact
that it was deducted from his remuneration that the shortfall would have been included
in the accounts he signed off. But as he does not say so, we cannot be sure that this
is his case.
7.2.3 The SOI for Scott Darlington (51) explains that "Shortfall 4" had risen incrementally
over the months since September 2008. In response to (d), Mr Darlington states "/
was suspended on the day of the audit and therefore did not carry out the accounts".
Mr Darlington has not indicated how he treated the shortfalls which arose between
September 2008 and February 2009 (the date of his suspension). We note that Mr
Darlington pleaded guilty to criminal charges of false accounting.
Putting it at its lowest, there appears to be a reluctance on the part of your clients to state
important matters that they are required to state and that are relevant to their own pleaded case.
We note that only 19 Claimants indicate that they submitted incorrect accounts to Post Office
despite there being 29 Claimants who have previously pleaded guilty to false accounting.
In some cases, Post Office may not have visibility of shortfalls that have arisen. This would occur
where postmasters make a shortfall good prior to submitting their accounts or where they submit
inaccurate accounts. Quite apart from anything else, the brief details required by section 3.1(d)
require the Claimants to state whether they have made good the shortfall without declaring it to
Post Office; whether the shortfall was declared and settled centrally / made good; or whether
inaccurate accounts were submitted (e.g. the Claimant approved or signed off accounts that were
not, on their face, consistent with the stock and cash held by in their branch).
The fact of whether a Claimant has submitted accounts which include shortfalls that they are now
arguing are either "not real" or did not exist is a critical issue in this case. Whether they have
done so is entirely within their own knowledge and no disclosure or information is needed from
Post Office on this point; Post Office having relied on the accounts submitted by the Claimants.
Your clients are required to state the position, confirmed by a Statement Truth. There can be no
excuse for their refusal to do so.
4A_36701701_2 5
WBD_001064.000005
8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4
9.1
9.2
10.
10.1
WBON0001194
WBON0001194
Question 4.2
The Claimants' responses to question 4.2 should confirm with a "yes/no" whether there was an
investigation undertaken by Post Office and, if yes, then the Claimants are required to give the
date and brief details of any investigations in relation to which they raise a complaint.
The majority of the SOls do not provide a yes/no answer but state that they have not seen any
evidence of an adequate investigation. This is not an answer to the question. If a Claimant
believes that no investigation was carried out then the response to section 4.2 should simply be
"no".
This is key question since if no investigation was carried out by Post Office then it follows that
there cannot have been any deceit or misrepresentation made during an investigation for the
Claimant to rely upon. Nor could any duress have been applied, harassment have occurred or
unconscionable dealing undertaken during the course of an investigation.
If it is the Claimants' case that an investigation gave rise to claims of this nature then details of
that investigation (including what was said, by whom, when and in what context) should be
provided in the SOI. The Claimants must assert a positive case. Again, these are matters that
will be in their own knowledge as they must have experienced these matters in order to sustain
claims for deceit, duress, unconscionable dealing and / or harassment.
Question 5.5
Section 5.5 of the SO! relates to the notice provided by Post Office. It required a simple answer
of "yes/no" and, if yes, then a statement of the period of notice given. However, a number of the
Claimants have provided either confusing or inconsistent responses, for example:
9.1.1. Michael Rudkin (156) has stated in his SOI that "/ was not given proper notice. I was
suspended, then reinstated, then suspended again, at which point I appealed, and I was
then terminated." This response clearly does not provide the details which were
required since it neither provides a yes/no answer nor the period of notice which was
given.
9.1.2 Christopher Trousdale (181) states in his SOI that his contract was immediately
terminated by Post Office but then continues in section 5.5 to claim that Post Office gave
notice.
It would seem that these responses have not been vetted by any lawyer.
Question 5.6
This question was aimed at Claimants who resigned and asks them to set out (i) whether they
resigned under pressure and, if so, (ii) the date and details of that pressure. Although this
section applies to a smaller number of Claimants, those Claimants do not give sufficient details to
enable any analysis to be undertaken so as to identify any common issues or themes or for Post
Office to understand the case it is being asked to meet. For example:
10.1.1 Lawrence Glyn Bailey (7) merely states in his SO! that Post Office said that his
reinstatement would be conditional on the payment of the alleged shortfall. No details of
how / when this pressure was applied by Post Office or how this would be illegitimate
pressure have been provided.
10.1.2 Virendra Bajaj (14) states she resigned due to "Post Office's failure to deal with the
shortfall issues I had been having with Horizon...". On these facts, no pressure appears
to have been applied on the Claimant to resign.
10.1.3 Gary Brown (33) states in his SOI that he was advised by his "union representative" to
resign since "it would look better than if I was terminated to potential new employers".
Mr Brown tendered his resignation prior to the final audit at which the shortfalls were
4A_36701701_2 6
WBD_001064.000006
10.2
11.
12.
12.1
12.2
12.3
WBON0001194
WBON0001194
found. No details of the pressure applied by Post Office which led to his resignation
have been provided.
We note again that this information will be within your clients' knowledge and disclosure from
Post Office is not required to address this issue.
Question 7.3
At question 7.3 (in relation to deceit), a large number of the Claimants have used a scripted
response (presumably provided by your firm) of "Yes, as I was led to believe that I had no
alternative but to pay the shortfall".
As we have noted in previous correspondence, claims of deceit can only be advanced where you
have instructions to make such a claim and you have material which you reasonably believe
shows a case for fraud (see IB (5.7) of the Solicitors' Code of Conduct). The SOls are also
verified by Statements of Truth. We are therefore concerned by the use of a stock answer to this
most important of questions.
Our concern is increased by the fact that the essential factual allegation on which the deceit
claims are based (allegations that your firm was required to establish for each Claimant before
asserting a claim for deceit in an SOI) do not appear to be set out elsewhere in the SOls as we
have explained above. This is important as without this information Post Office is unable to meet
the claim which is being brought against it and such claims may be vulnerable to strike out.
Section 8 — Inadequate quantum information
Senior Master Fontaine intended that Section 8 of the SOls would provide Post Office with a
clear indication of the value of most of the Claimants' claims and thus a fair idea of the total value
of their claims. This is clearly shown in the transcript from the GLO hearing.
1667. Mr de Garr Robinson QC: Well it would be helpful, it does occur to me that it would be
helpful if each form should in one small section the figure which can be added up to
produce the total claim, if it’s just, if my learned friend is simply saying it’s a bit duplicative
it won't cost any money to put it in twice.
1668. Senior Master Fontaine: So in other words it’s in the quantum section.
1669. Mr de Garr Robinson QC: Yes.
1670. Senior Master Fontaine: Alright. Yes.
1671. Mr Green QC: But we've already got the amount provided for in 8.1.
1672. Senior Master Fontaine: We don't need to put the date in, just put the amounts which
you can just duplicate ...
Whilst the Senor Master did not require values to be given for stigma / reputational damage,
personal injury, bankruptcy / insolvency losses and prosecution losses, she did require values for
every other head of claim. However, in the SOls provided, most of the Claimants have not given
indications of value even where they were required to do so. Consequently, it is not possible to
assess the overall value of most of the claims being brought or to estimate the likely total value of
the claims brought. It is also not possible to judge the value of dealing with any particular issue in
this case, nor is it possible to judge the proportionality of any particular case management step.
In 6 cases, the Claimants have not stated any values at all (Revti Bhanote (21), Shamsudin
Pyarali Govani (66), Steve Bryan Phillips (141), Christopher Sharples (163), Brian Skirrow (170),
and Sally Mary Kathleen Stringer (173)). But even where figures are mentioned, these are not
sufficient to enable an estimate to be made as to the value of any claim. It would appear that
most of the Claimants have not even attempted to make such an estimate, even though they
4A_36701701_2 7
WBD_001064.000007
12.4
12.5
12.6
13.
14.
14.1
14.2
14.3
14.4
14.5
14.6
WBON0001194
WBON0001194
were required to do so. To illustrate these points, we enclose in Schedule 1 of this letter
representative extracts of responses provided to the quantum questions.
Further, as addressed at paragraph 167 of Post Office's Generic Defence, the losses claimed in
the SOls provided to date fail to specify the breaches of contract or other legal wrongs on Post
Office's part from which the loss and damage resulted and/or consider matters of mitigation or
remoteness.
Post Office has been asking you to provide quantification of the Claimants’ claims since its Letter
of Response on 28 July 2016 and subsequently in (but not limited to) our letters of 31 August
2016, 13 October 2016 (paragraph 8.15), 17 November 2016 (paragraph 8.6) and 30 November
2016 (paragraph 1.3.3).
In addition to this general concern, we address below specific quantification sections which have
been inadequately responded to.
Question 8.4
In paragraph 132 of their Amended GPOC, the Claimants allege that "Claimants who were ...
terminated without notice have lost the income they would have received during the ... notice
period". In paragraph 71, they also allege that they were entitled to a 12 month notice period.
On this basis, Post Office's understanding of the Claimants’ case was that Post Office should
have provided each Claimant with a minimum of 12 months' notice.
Despite this, a number of the Claimants have set out losses based on either 3, 6 or 12 month
notice periods (for example, see the SO! for Kamajiit Kooner (103)). The claims asserted in the
SOls are therefore inconsistent with the Amended GPOC. This therefore either requires a further
amendment to the Amended GPOC or to the SOls; the two elements must be aligned.
Question 8.5
Section 8.5 has been inconsistently addressed by different Claimants, who each appear to be
claiming different types of loss of earnings.
First, some Claimants appear to be claiming loss of Post Office remuneration after their notice
period ended (ie. in addition to any claim under section 8.4) but this head of claim is not
referenced in the Amended GPOC. The only sections of the Amended GPOC that we can see
that might relate to this type of claim are:
14.2.1 Paragraph 131 which refers to "reduced profit to linked retail premises". This however
relates to earnings in a related retail business, not remuneration paid by Post Office.
14.2.2 Paragraph 135 which refers to "prejudice to future employment" as a consequence of
stigma / reputation damage. This loss would be picked up in question 8.6 of the SOI,
so we do not believe that this is relevant to question 8.5.
We cannot therefore see any part of the Amended GPOC that sets out a legal basis for claiming
loss of Post Office remuneration beyond the end of a notice period but nevertheless this type of
claim is advanced in the SOls (for example, see the SOls for Lesley Abbott (2), Mohammed
Zubair Amir (6) and Marion Drydale (55)).
Secondly, we note that other Claimants are claiming loss of income from associated retail
businesses and/or from other general loss of earnings through being unable to work. However, it
is not clear whether these claims are for lost revenue or profit or something else.
Thirdly, many Claimants are seeking to claim losses up to retirement, though different retirement
ages are used throughout the SOls.
Fourthly, there is also in some cases clear duplication or inconsistency between the claims for
loss of earnings under question 8.5 and the claims for loss of capital investment covered under
4A_36701701_2 8
WBD_001064.000008
14.7
15.
16.
16.1
16.2
16.3
16.4
WBON0001194
WBON0001194
question 8.2. This is despite question 8.5 expressly stating that the questions are linked and
there should not be duplicate claims. For example, Francis Maye (114) states that he sold his
business and claims a £45,000 capital loss whilst simultaneously claiming he would have
continued to work for another 10 years and so claims £325,000 in lost earnings.
This section again reflects the general lack of care used in preparing the SOls, the clear need for
legal assistance in preparing this type of document and a failure to comply with the GLO. It also
highlights inconsistencies in the calculation of losses between the Amended GPOC and SOls.
The lack of a consistent approach means that Post Office cannot extract common themes and
issues.
Question 8.7
We are surprised by the high proportion of Claimants who have claimed personal injury (at least
65% of the 198 Claimants). However, on reviewing the details of their claims, we see that many
of the Claimants appear to be alleging distress and anxiety rather than a recognised psychiatric
condition. As such, these Claimants have not passed the threshold for bringing a personal injury
claim.
The SOls are verified by Statements of Truth. The Claimants should therefore only be asserting
personal injury claims where they have genuinely suffered an injury and as their lawyers it is your
duty to advise them on what amounts to a recoverable personal injury. Again, the number of
claims for personal injury suggests a lack of involvement from your firm in the preparation of the
SOls.
Please ensure that the personal injury claims are limited to real cases of recognised psychiatric
harm or physical injury. We note that in personal injury cases the Civil Procedure Rules require
medical reports to be annexed to pleadings and our client reserves the right to call for such
reports at an early stage in the litigation process.
Action required
The purpose of the SOls was to allow the parties and the Court to identify Claimants who would
fall within distinct categories and enable case management decisions to be made in respect of
these. For this purpose, clear and accurate information and a consistent approach is required
from all the Claimants. However, the details given by the majority of the Claimants are
insufficient to allow us and the Court to understand the basic details of the claims brought against
Post Office.
To obtain a proper coherent and consistent approach in all of the SOls was always going to
require legal assistance and, as far as we were aware, the GLO hearing proceeded on the basis
that this would be provided by your firm. However, the SOls do not seem to have been prepared
on this basis, which is preventing analysis of the claims and is requiring our client to incur
additional costs in trying (and in many cases failing) to understand the claims it is facing.
We are writing now to draw your attention to the most serious deficiencies and to ask that you
ensure that that next round of SOls avoid these problems and are consistent, coherent and
compliant with the GLO.
The first tranche of SOls also need to be corrected. We recognise that this will require some time
and invite your proposals as to how and by when this could be done.
Yours faithfully
Bond Dickinson LLP
4A_36701701_2 9
WBD_001064.000009
WBON0001194
WBON0001194
Question 8.1
Repayment of
alleged shortfalls
Jennifer O'Dell (claimant
124)
Shamsudin Govani
(claimant 66)
John Robert Moir (claimant
120)
/ cannot estimate how much I
Yes
Yes, Post Office have a charge
ee er repaid to make good alleged over my house to cover the
shortfalls alleged shortfalls
Question 8.2 Jennifer O'Dell (claimant David Carney (claimant Margery Williams (claimant
L n 124) 39) 194)
oss of investment
(Yes/No, and
approximate value,
subject to expert
...1 do not consider this to be
an accurate reflection of my
true investment loss as I
Yes, as I would have
retained the value of the
business had Post Office not
Yes, I have lost value of the
business. I am unable to
quantify without expert
GUEST) anticipated running the Post acted as they did valuation evidence. However, I
Office for many years and I recall that I paid £5k when took
believe that my loss is higher retail shop over.
than this.
Question 8.3 Shamsudin Govani Francis Maye (claimant
Loss of earnings
during suspension
(approximate value
and brief details)
(claimant 66)
Margery Williams (claimant
194)
Yes
I was not paid any sums that
would have been due to me
during my period of
suspension.
Yes, to be quantified.
Question 8.4
Loss of earnings
for failure to give
notice
(approximate
value)
Stanley Fell (claimant 59)
Joanne Foulger (claimant
60)
Margery Williams (claimant
194)
Yes
Yes
Yes, to be quantified.
Question 8.5
Loss of earnings
post termination
(period claimed
and approximate
value) [If not
already dealt with
at 8.2 above]
Alan Riddell (claimant 152)
Joanne Foulger (claimant
60)
Peter Holloway (claimant 74)
We were planning to retire at
55 and make a healthy profit
out of the branch. However,
because of the shortages we
had to use all of our
insurance and pension pots,
so we were left with no
money to retire on.
Yes
Yes — substantial damages
claim to be assessed:
(a) Had I not been terminated it
was my intention to remain in
the branch for another 6 years
as this is when the loan would
have been paid off.
4A_36701701_2
WBD_001064.000010