Confidential and legally privileged
Letter of Claim: Work Plan
WBON0001953
WBON0001953
Section
Comment
Action
General
The letter is long and raises lots of issues — many of which are not
covered in the schedule of questions at the end of the LOC
BD to prepare para by para analysis of information
needed / response required to form basis of letter of
response.
A: Background section
setting out history of
Horizon investigations
On one level this section is irrelevant as it does not go to the substance
of any claim. However it should be addressed as it is a twisted version
of history that (i) taints any other response by POL and (ii) sets a
canvass against which Post Office is then accused of fraud and / or
ignorance of issues with Horizon.
BD to set out corrected version of history. We largely
have this knowledge already so little further investigation
will be required.
B: Legal relationship
between POL and
SPMRs.
This section looks to imply new duties on POL. The aim is to reverse
the burden on SPMRs to investigate their own losses (presumably
because Freeths know that the SPMRs cannot show any problem with
Horizon on their own).
Recommend that POL instructs Counsel to advise on
analysis of legal duties.
C: Description of
problems with Horizon
and POL operating
practices.
The problems raised are almost exclusively a recitation of the Second
Sight Part Two Report.
BD to cross check LOC against POL Response to P2
Report to ensure that all points are covered.
Any new points to be identified and investigated with the
help of Kath and Shirley.
D: Relationship
between POL and
Fujitsu
Freeths make a small number of statements about how the POL / FJ
relationship works.
Further recitation of points raised in SS P2 Report specifically in relation
to FJ and Helplines.
BD to review FJ contract to address questions; if further
info is needed, questions to be addressed to POL IT
team.
Remaining answers should be covered by POL
Response to P2 Report.
E: Post Office
concealed problems
with Horizon
This section appears to be an attempt to pre-empt POL's limitation
defence by saying that POL concealed the cause of action which is one
of the grounds on which limitation can be extended.
No further factual information required.
Tactical decision to be taken on how to respond.
4A_32858562_1
WBON0001953
WBONO0001953
Counsel may be able to provide insight on how to
address limitation issues.
F: List of specific
causes of action
alleged against POL
Although this section raises several causes of action, it provides little
particulars to support each claim. An initial review indicates that Freeths
have provided insufficient information to justify many of the heads of
claim.
The lack of factual particulars means little investigation
will be required.
BD to review each claim and identify missing particulars /
legal flaws in claims.
G: Loss and damage
suffered by SPMRs
Broad heads of claims set out but no details or figures included
BD to highlight all known legal and causation issues with
losses raised.
H: Invitation to
mediation
BD to research cases where mediation has been
reasonably refused.
Tactical decision to be taken on how to respond to
invitation.
I: Disclosure requests
Initial review is that the disclosure requests are disproportionately wide.
Complying with the request would be disproportionately expensive.
Arguably, until the Claim Form is served, proceedings have not begun
and therefore the Pre-Action Disclosure regime applies (ie. Freeths have
to pay for disclosure)
BD to discuss tactical approach with POL at an early
stage.
If disclosure is to be given, BD to advise on structure of
disclosure exercise.
J: Request for
assurance that POL
will not victimise
SPMRs
Same request as before
No factual information needed.
BD and POL to discuss tactical approach to responding.
K: Official Secrets Act
It is unclear why Freeths are so nervous about the OSA section in the
SPMR contract
POL to identify a key person at POL who understands the
OSA background and person to meet with BD.
BD to research OSA requirements.
L: Request for POL
consent to GLO
Initial view is that POL should oppose formation of GLO due to lack of
commonality of issues.
Tactical response to be considered but immediate view is
that POL should ask Freeths to identify common issues.
M: Procedure for
The idea of holding preliminary issues is sound.
BD to advise on tactics of which preliminary issues may
4A_32858562_1
WBON0001953
WBONO0001953
litigation be useful.
Counsel may also usefully input into this topic.
N: Timing of response Holding response to be sent stating that POL will require
more time to respond.
4A_32858562_1 3