WBON0001683
WBON0001683
From: Anthony de Garr Robinson
To: Andrew Pai
Ce: Owain Draper
Subject: RE:
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2017 12:12:22 +0000
Importance: Normal
Inline-Images: image001 jpg; image002.jpg
Oops, I sent the wrong version previously (the only difference with this version is in para 46(4) itself — I
have added a few words to convey that escalation involves further investigation and review.
From: Anthony de Garr Robinson
Sent: 12 July 2017 13:10
To: 'Parsons, Andrew! GRO
‘Amy Prime' <
Ce: Owain Draper <
Subject: RE:
Dear all,
I’ve given the pleading a fresh look this morning and have suggested a number of changes to tighten it up
(attached). It is now down to 75 pages, which can only be a good thing (famous last words).
The one major change I have suggested relates to para 46(4). That para addresses the process by which
disputes regarding shortfalls are escalated. In paras 46(4)(a) to e) we go into some detail as to the escalation
process and as to the possible result — namely Post Office telling the Subpostmaster that the money is
contractually due, Post Office giving the Subpostmaster a contractual instruction to pay it and Post Office
ultimately terminating the contract if the Subpostmaster maintains his dispute. We do not strictly need to say
this in this pleading and if these paras stay in my feeling is (1) that the Claimants will treat them as an
effective vindication of their case on economic duress ete and (2) that those paras may in any event be a
hostage to fortune. Unless you disagree, Andy, my sense is that there may be some claimants whose
experiences are rather different from the picture painted in those paras and I don't it prudent to take the risk
of giving them an opportunity to point this out in their Reply and thereby to say that we are peddling a false
case and cannot be trusted on the facts.
This is a difficult judgment call, but I think when in doubt, leave it out. What do you think about these
paragraphs?
WBD_001553.000001
WBON0001683
WBON0001683
More fundamentally, do you think that there are any other paras where we have said things that the
precautionary principle suggests should not be said or should be toned down?
Best wishes,
Tony
From: Anthony de Garr Robinson
Sent: 11 July 2017 2:
To: 'Parsons, Andre
‘Amy Prime! <__
Ce: Owain Draper
Subject: RE:
Importance: High
Dear all,
At times today, this pleading felt like it would never stop, but I have finally got to the end. The internal para
refs are going to be a nightmare and now all the threads have been pulled together it needs a final proper read
through. But I am too frazzled to worry about these things tonight.
Best wishes,
Tony
From: Anthony de Garr Robinson
Sent: 11 July 2017 15:18
To: 'Parsons, Andrew
‘Amy Prime! <
Ce: Owain Draper <
Subject: RE:
Dear Amy,
As discussed just now. I have got to para 69 and I have not proof read or spellchecked anything.
WBD_001553.000002
WBON0001683
WBON0001683
Tony
From: Anthony de Garr Robinson
Sent: 11 July 2017 12:23
To: Parso1
Prime! <;
Ce: Owain Draper +
Subject:
Dear all,
As discussed just now, here is where I have got to with the Defence (page 18). The summary includes
Owain’s comments too.
Tracking the changes to this draft can sometimes cause difficulties, so please let me know if you are happy
for me not to do so.
Best wishes,
Tony
Anthony de Garr Robinson QC Switchboard:
Fax:
www.oeclaw.co.uk
ONE ESSEX COURT
a
VW
One Essex Court, London One Essex Court, Singapore
Temple Maxwell Chambers #02-15
London EC4Y SAR 32 Maxwell Road
United Kingdom Singapore 069115
Chambers UK Commercial Litigation
Set of the Year 2015
Top Ranked Top Ranked
UK BAR CHAMBERS CHAMBERS
ARDS UK BAR GLOBAL
2016 2015
NNER Leading Set Leading Set
WBD_001553.000003
WBON0001683
WBON0001683
The contents of this email are CONFIDENTIAL and may be PRIVILEGED. If you are not the intended recipient, please telephone
(020) 7583 2000 and delete this email.
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
WBD_001553.000004