WBONO001217
WBON0001217
From:
To: Anthony de Garr Robinsot >, Owain Draper
1 GRO
Ce: Amy Prime 4 GRO
Subject: RE: Bates judgment
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2017 18:08:17 +0000
Importance: Normal
Inline-Images: image001.gif; image002.jpg; image003.png; image004.png; image005.png;
imagebfa38f.PNG; imagefbbcd2.PNG; image6caldc.PNG
Tony
I think we drop para 2. Seems petty and also he clearly caveats that the facts are hotly contested.
On the GLO, your recollection is correct.
Agree with para 12.
Amy — can you find the missing dates for the attached and also carefully review the correspondence on para 12 to
make sure this is right. Then can you send to Rod to get his approval.
As to other applications, we now have instructions to apply for security. However, we have some further steps to take
first: (i) I'm going to call Freeths to try to resolve this (ii) we need to write direct to Therium and (iii) we want to send a
draft application to Freeths before issuing it. This is a job for next week.
Heads up for everyone — I'm going awol tomorrow
looking at my emails (it will never happen but I can try!
'm going to try to go a full day without
A
Andrew Parsons
Partner
Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP
WOMBLE womblebonddickinson.com
BOND
DICKINSON tin)
WBD_001087.000001
WBONO001217
WBON0001217
From: Anthony de Garr Robinson [mailtoz
Sent: 08 November 2017 17:37
To: Andrew Parsons; Owain Draper
Subject: RE: Bates judgment
Dear both of you,
I’ve knocked up a draft list of points on the draft judgment, which will need to be sent to the court tomorrow:
see attached. Could you let me know if you have any comments, queries or further suggestions? Speaking
for myself, I am not sure whether we should bother with para 2. I did wonder whether we should make any
suggestions regarding his summary of our case in para 5, but it seems clear that quibbling with things like
that will be counter-productive.
On para 5, my recollection is that we never opposed the GLO, we just sat on the fence for a while but then
agreed it, long before the hearing. Is that not right? It would be helpful to include in the attached document
a date of the letter in which we agreed to a GLO or some other indication as to how long before the GLO
hearing we did so.
Para 12 raises a point suggested by Owain, and he is checking the correspondence to carefully make sure that
it is correct in every material particular. Feel free to change it, not only to avoid error but also to avoid any
implication that we are criticising the claimants or seeking praise for ourselves.
T agree with all the wider points you make below. It is worrying that Fraser almost seems to be one of those
people who likes to think the worst of others, which (entirely coincidentally) allows him to feel better about
himself for sorting out their deficiencies. I would like to comfort myself with the thought that his judgment
goes out of its way to lay equal blame on the claimants, but at this stage it would, wouldn’t it?
The most immediate concern is that he thinks we have acted against the overriding objective in failing to
give disclosure of “obviously relevant documents”: unless we come to court with a big offer on disclosure,
the hearing in January next year is not going to be fun for us. And now he has fixed a hearing for March
2019, he might well be looking for a comprehensive disclosure timetable which could be totally unrealistic.
The name of the game will be to produce cogent evidence in good time before the hearing which provides
incontrovertible explanations as to the areas in which a swift disclosure timetable would be impossible to
meet. I strongly suspect that it will be in our interests to serve this evidence before Christmas, shortly after
the time we serve out EDQ. This would give Freeths an opportunity to serve responsive evidence to which
we would have an opportunity to reply. I may be wrong, but I imagine that Freeths may well make a series of
bad points which we will be able to demolish. This would put us in the best possible position at the hearing, I
think. In any event, if we serve evidence at a time that makes it difficult for Freeths to respond in good time
before the hearing, we know what the judge’s reaction will be.
On the cut-off date, it is worth remembering that we (the whole legal team) would have preferred to offer an
extension until October but were not given this latitude by the client. Given that the GLO itself anticipated a
cut-off extension, we (and the client) knew we were risking trouble.
WBD_001087.000002
WBONO001217
WBON0001217
Notwithstanding his reference to pointless interlocutory skirmishes, if we have sensible applications to make,
we should make them, and make them promptly. Are we seeking security for costs, for example?
Anyway, if I could have your comments on and details/drafting for the enclose list by mid- or late morning
tomorrow, I would be grateful.
Best wishes,
Tony
From: Andrew Parsons [mailto
Sent: 08 November 2017 14:59
To: Owain Draper 4
Subject: Re: Bates judgment
Anthony de Garr Robinson
Hmmm...
He seems to have got the wrong end of the stick on many points but we’re stuck with that now.
We should at least correct para 5. We didn’t oppose the GLO.
What makes me nervous is his willingness to characterise points of disagreement as unreasonable.
POL had genuine concerns with the cut off date, he ruled against which is fair enough, but I struggle to see
that our stance was unreasonable.
Likewise with our idea that there should be a further CMC before fixing a trial date. He disagreed but our
approach was not unreasonable.
This worries me going forward.
WBD_001087.000003
WBONO001217
WBON0001217
On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 2:27 PM +0000, "Rob Smith" ¢
Dear All,
Please see the attached and the below.
Kind regards
Rob
Robert Smith Direct dial: H H
Switchboard: I i
www.oeclaw.co.uk Mobile:
ONE ESSEX COURT
One Essex Court, London One Essex Court, Singapore
Temple Maxwell Chambers #02-15
London EC4Y 9AR 32 Maxwell Road
United Kingdom Singapore 069115 Chambers UK Banking & Finance Set
of the Year 2016
Chambers UK Commercial Litigation
Set of the Year 2015
LEADING SET
LEADING StT
The contents of this.
il are CONFIDENTIAL and may be PRIVILEGED. If you are not the intended recipient,
please telephone ¢.
ind delete this email.
Andrew Parsons
Partner
Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP
WBD_001087.000004
WBONO001217
WBON0001217
WOMBLE womblebonddickinson.com
ON
BOND
DICKINSON v in)
From: Clerks
Sent: 08 November 2017 13:55
To: Team A; Team C
Subject: FW: Bates judgment
From: Harries, Ann
Sent: 08 Novem!
Subject: FW: Bates judgment
For the attention of Mr Patrick Green QC, Kathleen Donnelly and Ognjen Miletic and Mr Anthony De Garr Robinson
QC, & Owain Draper.
Dear all
Please find attached the Draft Judgment in the above.. Please kindly note the date for return of any amendments for
as you will also see at the top the Judge wishes to hand this down on Friday 10 at 10.15 am
Parties are excused attendance.
Clerks I would be grateful if you would kind pass this also to the solicitors for both sides.
I am grateful for your help.
Thank you.
Kind regards
Ann Harries
Clerk to The Hon Mr Justice Fraser
Royal Courts of Justice
WBD_001087.000005
WBONO001217
WBON0001217
Rolls Building 7 4th floor (Pod 10)
Fetter Lane
LONDON EC4 INL.
Pursuant to Practice Direction 510 (specifically the Practice Note to Paragraph 3.4(2) published 12 October 2016), it is no
longer acceptable to file attachments (i.e. Witness Statements, Exhibits, Correspondence etc.) via email to be placed on the
Court file.
These documents will need to be lodged through ce-filing. More information can be found at www.ce-file.uk
This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of
the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying
is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all
copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message
could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in
mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this message
by e-mail.
This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be
monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. E-mail
monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be
read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not
broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of
the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying
is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all
copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message
could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in
mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this message
by e-mail.
This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be
monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. E-mail
monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be
read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not
broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
WBD_001087.000006
WBONO001217
WBON0001217
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?
“}y is authorised to access
any copies. Unauthorised
‘The information in this e- ichments is co
this e-mail and any attachments. If you are not arobinso#
dissemination, distribution, publication or copying of Ti
be legally privileged and
please notify andrew,
jon or attachments is prohibi
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.
inlawwful,
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 r e
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
-gal 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.symantecclou
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
WBD_001087.000007