WBON0001707
WBON0001707
From: "Parsons, Andrew" <.
To: "Rodric Williams {oven GRO
Ce: "Chris Aujard ¢ GRO_
Subject: Note on summary termination / harm to retail business [BD-4A.FID20472253]
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 09:36:17 +0000
Importance: Normal
Attachments: Consequential_loss_-_harm_to_retail_business.pdf
Inline-Images: image001 jpg; image002.jpg; image003.jpg
Rodric, David
As discussed briefly yesterday, I've captured my thoughts in the attached note on the issue of whether an SPMR has a
claim for harm to their retail business following the wrongful summary termination of their contract.
I know that Linklaters touched on this point in their advice but I thought I would add a few other ideas to help draw out
some of the nuances. In addition to the legal arguments in the attached note, there is also a major commercial driver to
bear in mind. I understand that POL does not, as a matter of commercial principle, accept responsibility for SPMR's
retail businesses. This principle guides the SPMR contract, SPMR termination appeals and the approach taken by NT.
To depart from this principle in the context of the Scheme could have ramifications in other areas that would need to be
explored further.
Kind regards
Andy
Andrew Parsons
Senior Associate
for and on behalf of Bond Dickinson LLP
Follow Bond Dickinson:
BTin
www.bonddickinson.com
WBD_001577.000001