From: Tom Beezer
To: Gideon Cohen <j David Cavender [
Stephanie Wood <
Ce: Amy Prime
>, Dave Panaech
WBONO0001515
WBON0001515
b
Andrew Parsons +
Subject: RE: recusal
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2019 11:23:13 +0000
Importance: Normal
Inline-Images: image001.png; image002.png; image003.png; image004.png; image005.jpg;
imageb3fbf1.PNG; image94f0c4.PNG; image2b20e8.PNG
POL raise a further Q to discuss at 11.45am...this is just a heads up
The Q is as follows — if the contracts are the most important bit of the POL business — and if the interpretation thing
could be sorted out on appeal, and if this current Judge would have to abide by the CofA rulings, then what "more" do
we get by recusal ?
iy
Tom Beezer
Partner
Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP
‘Stay informed: sign up to our e-alerts
Join us for Disrupting Disputes 2.0
20 March 2019 at the British Library
Book your place here
WOMBLE womblebonddickinson.com
BOND
DICKINSON ¥) (in)
From: Gideon Cohen [mailtoi_
Sent: 20 March 2019 10:43
To: Tom Beezer; David Cavender; Stephanie Wood
Cc: Amy Prime; Dave Panaech; Andrew Parsons
Subject: RE: recusal [WBDUK-AC.FID26896945]
WBD_001385.000001
WBONO0001515
WBON0001515
Yes, I have already discussed with him.
Best
Gideon
From: Tom Beezer [mailto:
Sent: 20 March 2019 10:3
To: Gideon Cohen; David Cavender; Stephanie Wood
Cc: Amy Prime; Dave Panaech; Andrew Parsons
Subject: FW: recusal [WBDUK-AC.FID26896945]
Gideon...can you warm Lord Grabiner up for the Q in highlight.
Tom Beezer
Partner
Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP
‘Stay informed: sign up to our e-alerts
Join us for Disrupting Disputes 2.0
20 March 2019 at the British Library
Book your place here
WOMBLE
DICKINSON Ow
From: Tom Beezer
Sent: 20 March 2019 10:34
To: ‘Jane MacLeod’
Subject: RE: recusal [WBDUK-AC.FID26896945]
I will warm AGQC up for that Q...but my view is that there is no middle ground...sorry...
WBD_001385.000002
WBONO0001515
WBON0001515
From: Jane MacLeod [mailto{
Sent: 20 March 2019 10:27
To: Tom Beezer
Subject: RE: recusal [WBDUK-AC.FID26896945]
Thanks Tom
Thanks
jane
® Jane MacLeod
Group Director of Legal, Risk & Governance
Ground Floor
20 Finsbury Street
LONDON
EC2Y 9AQ
From: Tom Beezer [mailto
Sent: 20 March 2019 10:15
To: Jane MacLeod <_
Cc: andrew.parsons { GRO .
. GRO Pp; Amy Prime <
Rodric Williams <
>; Dave Panaech
{ >
Subject: RE: recusal [WBDUK-AC.FID26896945]
Jane
As requested, Counsel team response below:
WBD_001385.000003
WBONO0001515
WBON0001515
Dear Tom,
This proposal does not work. Indeed, if made, this application would make matters (even worse).
Even if PO decide not to seek to recuse Fraser J I would advise strongly against the proposed course.
I say this for the following reasons:
(1) The immediate (and likely irreversible) prejudice PO are suffering is the effects of the
apparent bias Fraser J showed in the CIT upon his current handling of the Horizon issues
trial. There is also the future prejudice of him handling the breach trial in November 2019.
(2) The only way of seeking to deal with the prejudice is to seek his recusal on an urgent basis.
(3) Seeking to appear before him indicating that PO is going to appeal against his CIT
judgment on grounds of procedural unfairness — will assuredly not result in him adjourning
the Horizon trial. He will not do so because the unfairness in the CIT trial itself does not
infect the Horizon trial. It is the apparent bias of Fraser J that infects the Horizon trial. The
only remedy for that is recusal.
(4) If, on this proposal, Fraser J’s refusal to adjourn the Horizon trial is then appealed to the
Court of Appeal — they would assuredly not adjourn that trial and would not recuse him-
because there would not application before them to do so.
(5,
Furthermore, an appeal against a refusal to recuse is much more likely to come on as an
urgent appeal — than an appeal against the refusal of a judge to adjourn a trial on the basis
that he showed procedural unfairness in an earlier trial between the same parties. Indeed
the latter appeal is very likely to come on after the Horizon trial is completed and the
Judgment handed down. This fact would make it more unlikely the Court of Appeal would
intervene.
(6)
And, if all this comes to pass (as it most assuredly would) is the proposal that then PO
applies to the judge to recuse himself ? And then appeal him if he does not ? This make no
sense- and would all come too late to be effective to deal with the prejudice in (1). Indeed,
this course of action would look very much as if PO were seeking to delay matters and
behave badly- in the manner presently charged by the Judge.
(7) If there are good grounds for a recusal (and clearly there are) and good prospects of
success (as advised) then the Court of Appeal would expect PO to apply to the Judge to
recuse himself and then appeal him if he did not. There is no middle ground here.
Best,
D.
David Cavender Q.C.
One Essex Court
Temple \ ONE ESSEX COURT
London EC4Y 9AR
WBD_001385.000004
WBONO0001515
WBON0001515
Tom Beezer
Partner
Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP.
Stay informed: sign up to our e-alerts
Join us for Disrupting Disputes 2.0
20 March 2019 at the British Library
Book your place here
lickinson..
DICKINSON ¥) (in)
From: Jane MacLeod [mailto:
Sent: 20 March 2019 07:14
To: Tom Beezer
Cc: Andrew Parsons; Rodric Williams
Subject: recusal
Tom
I have been asked to see whether an approach along the following lines (as an alternative to recusal) would
be possible procedurally:
“1. inform the judge that the company is appealing on the law and unfair procedure
2. ask the judge to stop the Horizon trial until the outcome of the appeal is determined on the grounds that if
the unfairness claim is upheld it would also put the fairness of the Horizon trial at risk
WBD_001385.000005
WBONO0001515
WBON0001515
3. If the judge refuses 2, seek and order from a higher court to the same effect and ask the judge at least to
stop the Horizon trial until such an order can be obtained (or not)
If the remedy in 3 is sought but isn’t obtained we will at least have tested the relevance and implications of
unfairness issues on the second trial. And effectively a higher court will have told us that any unfairness in
the first trial would not impact the Horizon trial (obviously contrary to POL’s view).
If the remedy in 3 doesn’t exist in law then recusal would be an alternative at that point. It seems to me the
judge’s refusal to agree to 2 would support a recusal application as he would be unwilling to accept that if
unfairness took place in the first trial the nature of it would necessarily affect the conduct and fairness of the
Horizon trial - a view which logically suggests bias as it is absurd.”
Could we please test this with the Counsel team? It may have the outcome that the judge is asked to recuse
himself, but not necessarily. And seems to assume that we could get an appeal quite quickly, which must be
uncertain. I’m also not sure that the logic in 2. holds up, and 3 means arguing procedural unfairness without
(necessarily) arguing mis-application of the law ete.
Thanks,
Jane
Jane MacLeod
Group Director Legal, Risk & Governance
Post Office
JSS SEES AEGIS ACES IGEIEI SEE ISIG AGRA IRA ICICI ACI RII AC AIC AR ASR oc aA ca
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
WBD_001385.000006
WBONO0001515
WBON0001515
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.
AISI SOISISE SIGE SSISS AIS IEIS ISIS SIGIR I ICIS K ICI AIG CAA IK ACSI ACR aA A ok oa ak oe
“Post Office Limited is committed to protecting your privacy. Information about how we do this can be
found on our website at www.postoffice.co.uk/privacy”
Please consider the environment! Do you need to print this em:
attachments is confidential and
The information in this e- c legally privileged and protected by law. jane.macleod@ ly is authorised to
Unauthorised use, dissemination, distribution, publication or copying of tis eomiiaication or attachments is prohibited and may be unlawful, Information about how we use
access this e s soon as possible and delete any copii
personal data is in our 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 r
office is 4 More London Riverside, London, S
employee or consultant who is of equi
stered in England and Wales under number 0C317661. Our registered
pection. We use the term partner to refer to a mi
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 ent entity and is not responsible for the acts or omissions of,
nor ean bind or obligate, another Womble Bond Dickinson entity. Womble Bond Dickinson (International) Limited does not practice law. Please see
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_001385.000007