From: Tom Beezer ¢.
To: Andrew Parsons ¢
Ce: Amy Prime {7
Subject: RE: recusal [WBDUK-AC.FID26896945]
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2019 08:05:54 +0000
WBONO0001803
WBON0001803
"Gideon Cohen
b, "David Cavender
>, "Stephanie Wood
¢ "GRO
Importance: Normal
Inline-Images: image001.png; image002.png; image003.png; imaged3 lef .PNG; imagee484f2.PNG;
imageaccd11.PNG
Also..
Info...Jane says that for the 11.45 call with Lord Grabiner the Board of POL has asked for "independent legal advice"
so a "non-litigation" partner from Norton Rose will be dialling in. Don’t know who.
Gideon, David — you may want to make Lord Grabiner aware, although I don’t expect that to worry him one jot as he
was quite emphatic as to where the Board's duty lay.
This e mail is just info...just found the above out.
Tom Beezer
Partner
Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP
er30
Q@)
A
Oo
‘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)
WBONO0001802_0001
WBONO0001803
WBON0001803
From: Tom Beezer
Sent: 20 March 2019 08:00
To: Andrew Parsons; Gideon Cohen
Wood {7
Cc: Amy Prime
Subject: RE: recusal [WBDUK-AC.FID26896945]
David Cavender Stephanie
I don't disagree...but I was asked to ask the Q...so I did...
We need answers that I can collate into a narrative back to POL.
Shorter the better...
Thanks all...
From: Andrew Parsons
Sent: 20 March 2019 07:58
To: T i
Wood
Cc: Amy Prime
Subject: RE: recusal
David Cavender
; Stephanie
Point 2 is logically wrong. The procedural unfairness for trial 1 does not automatically infect trial 2 with procedural
unfairness, because the procedure for both trials was different. The cross-infection is due to the Judge's bias.
Also, there is zero chance of this judge staying the Horizon trial in any event, and without a recusal application on the
cards, I cannot see the C of A moving quick enough to stay the Horizon trial on normal appeal grounds.
This plan will almost certainly fail, will just waste time and make PO look indifferent to recusal when it needs to move
forcefully.
Just my two cents...
A
Andrew Parsons
Partner
Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP
WBONO0001802_0002
‘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: Tom Beezer
Sent: 20 March 2019 07:44
To: Gideon Cohen (gcoher, GRO }; David Cavender (
Cc: Amy Prime; Andrew Parsons
Subject: FW: recusal [WBDUK-AC.FID26896945]
All
The client askes the question below. Views ?
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 J) (in)
WBONO0001803
WBON0001803
WBONO0001802_0003
WBONO0001803
WBON0001803
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
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.”
WBONO0001802_0004
WBONO0001803
WBON0001803
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 etc.
Thanks,
Jane
WBONO0001802_0005