WBON0001979
WBON0001979
From: Amy Prime <
To: Simon Henderson
_>, Jonathan Gribben.
hen >, Andrew Parsons
Subject: RE: Letter to Freeths - KEL and PEAKs [WBDUK-AC.FID27032497]
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2019 17:37:23 +0000
Importance: Normal
Inline-Images: image001.png; image002.png; image003.png; image382add.PNG; image10db06.PNG;
imaged9fbc6.PNG
Ce: Lucy Bremner 4
Simon
Freeths have confirmed:
"There is no list of those KELs that were deleted beyond retrieval, i.e. those in category 2.a) in the email below,
therefore the existence of such a KEL can only be surmised by it being referenced elsewhere (that is, on the
assumption that any such reference has been typed correctly.)"
Many thanks
Amy
Amy Prime
Solicitor
Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP.
Stay informed: sign up to our e-alerts
WOMBLE womblebonddickinson.com
BOND
\ DICKINSON bin)
From: Simon Henderson [mailto:
Sent: 18 February 2019 17:06
T my Prime
Cc: Lucy Bremner; Jonathan Gribben; Andrew Parsons
Subject: RE: Letter to Freeths - KEL and PEAKs [WBDUK-AC.FID27032497]
Amy
Final thought: I think the answer to this is obvious but presumably FJ do not know how many irretrievable
KELs there are i.e. there is no record of the number of them?
Simon
WBON0001979
WBON0001979
From: Amy Prime [mailto:
Sent: 18 February 2019 16:
To: Simon Hendersot
Ce: Lucy Bremner.
Andrew Parsons <.
Subject: RE: Letter to Freeths - KEL and PEAKs [WBDUK-AC.FID27032497]
Simon
Thanks, we will add this to the Parker 3 list and amend the letter as suggested
Many thanks
Amy
Amy Prime
Solicitor
Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP
Stay informed: sign up to our e-alerts
WOMBLE womblebonddickinson.com
BOND
DICKINSON v ©
From: Simon Henderson [mailto?
Sent: 18 February 2019 16:19
To: Amy Prime
Cc: Lucy Bremner; Jonathan Gribben; Andrew Parsons
Subject: RE: Letter to Freeths - KEL and PEAKs [WBDUK-AC.FID27032497]
OK but we are still left with the problem that Parker 2 has not explained this. I think this needs to be added
to the list of things which should be dealt with in Parker 3.
I think as well that your letter should make it clear that the non-retrievable KELs are in addition to those
referred to in Parker 2.
Best
Simon
WBON0001979
WBON0001979
From: Amy Prime [mailto:
Sent: 18 February 2019 1
To: Simon Henderso1
Ce: Lucy Bremner
Andrew Parsons <
Subject: RE: Letter to Freeths - KEL and PEAKs [WBDUK-AC.FID27032497]
Simon
The 1,491 deleted KELs referred to in Parker 2 are the retrievable, deleted KELS which have been disclosed. This
figure does not include the non-retrievable deleted KELs. The position in our letter of 17 Jan 19 should therefore be
consistent with the disclosure of documents referred to by Parker in his statement.
Whilst the existence of these non-retrievable deleted KELS will be new to Freeths, we have not withheld any
documents from disclosure (since there is nothing to provide) and the documents which they have access to would be
the same no matter when they were informed about this.
Kind regards
Amy
Amy Prime
Solicitor
Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP.
Stay informed: sign up to our e-alerts
WOMBLE womblebonddickinson.com
BOND
DICKINSON Ain)
From: Simon Henderson [mailto:
: 18 February 2019 13:52
my Prime
ucy Bremner; Jonathan Gribben; Andrew Parsons
Subject: RE: Letter to Freeths - KEL and PEAKs [WBDUK-AC.FID27032497]
Amy
The drafting of the letter is fine.
However, if I have understood this properly we are now telling Freeths for the first time that there is a further
category of KELs namely those that were deleted and are non-retrievable. This is likely to cover, as I
WBON0001979
WBON0001979
understand the evidence, the period 2000-2008. Is that right? If so, that is obviously a significant amount of
the time covered by Horizon. In WBD’s letter dated 17/1/19 reference is made to paras 61.6 and 61.9 of
Parker 2. Here he says that there are 113 deactivated Legacy Horizon KELs and 1,491 deleted KELs. In
arriving at these figures, has he included those KELs which we now know are non-retrievable? If so, then I
think it might be worth confirming this in this letter. If not, however, it will follow that we are now telling
them about the existence of entirely new KELs and we need to consider how best to present this. The
impression given by 10.2 of the 17/1 letter is that we were providing all 1,491 deleted KELs referred to in
Parker 2 61.9.
I think this should be bottomed out before this letter is sent.
Best
Simon
jonathan Gribben ¢
Andrew Parsons <_
Subject: Letter to BDUK-AC.FID27032497]
Dear Simon
In Coyne 2, there are a number of references to Peaks and KELs which have not been disclosed. FJ have looked into
these for us and provided confirmation as to whether they can locate the documents and if so, provided us with a copy
of them. Please find attached a draft letter to Freeths which gives disclosure of these documents.
Peaks
FJ have managed to locate some of the Peaks referred to by Coyne in an archive of PinICL (the predecessor to
PEAK). Matthew (FJ) has confirmed:
There are two Access databases that contain some details of archived PinICLs.
Our [FJ's] understanding is that they appear to be incomplete both in terms of a) not containing all of the original
information that was stored against those PinICL details that they do contain, and b) not containing between them all
of the PinICLs that existed.
KEL
Matthew has also confirmed (see attached email) that there are different types of deleted KELs: (1) non-retrievable
and (2) deleted but saved. We have given disclosure of the Category (2) documents on 17 January 2019, and the
KELs not disclosed but referred to by Coyne are believed to fall within category (1) and therefore we cannot give
disclosure of these.
Any comments on the letter would be welcomed.
WBON0001979
WBON0001979
Kind regards
Amy
Amy Prime
Solicitor
Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP
Stay informed: sign up to our e-alerts
WOMBLE womblebonddickinson.com
BOND
DICKINSON Lin)
Please consider the environment! Do you need to print this email?
shendersorf "”"” GR
ribution, publication or copying OF This COfAUnication or att
on our website
c been checked by us with virus detection software before transmission. Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP accepts no liability for
ay be caused by software viruses and you should carry out yourown virus checks before openit
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 partner
office is 4 More London Rivers 2AU, where a list of mi
ip registered in England and Wiles under number 0C317661. O4
inspection. We use the term partner to refer to a member of the LLP. or an
bers’ names is op
ber of Womble Bond Dickinson (Intemational) Limited, which cor
around the world, Each Womble Bond Dickinson entity is aseparate
Bond Dickinson entity, Womble Bond Dickinson (International) Limited does not practice law Please see
www.womblebonddickinson.com/legal notices for further details
ists of independent
d autonomous law firms providing
al entity and is not responsible for the acts or omissions of,
Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority
Simon Henderson
4 Pump Court, Temple, London, EC4Y 7AN I www.4pumpcourt.com
4 Follow us on twitter @4PumpCourt
il View Profile Connect with us on LinkedIn
Pump Court International I www.pumpcourtinternational.com
Terms of Work: Barristers at 4 Pump Court carry out services on 4 Pump Court Terms, which are available on our website,
unless otherwise agreed in writing. I View Terms
Privacy: Your attention is drawn to our Privacy Notice in relation to any personal data that we may obtain and/or otherwise
process about you. I View Privacy Notice
Notice of Confidentiality and Privilege: This email (including attachments) is confidential to the addressee, and may be
‘subject to legal professional privilege. If you are not the addressee, you must not copy, distribute or otherwise use it or any
information contained in this email. Please delete it, and destroy all copies