Bates & Others v Post Office Ltd

Last updated

Bates & Others v Post Office Ltd
Rolls Building, Royal Courts of Justice.jpg
Rolls Building, Royal Courts of Justice
Court High Court of Justice
Decided2019
Citations[2017] EWHC QB 2844
[2018] EWHC QB 2698
[2019] EWHC QB 606
[2019] EWHC QB 2871
[2019] EWHC QB 1373
[2019] EWHC QB 3408
Court membership
Judge sitting The Honourable Mr Justice Fraser

Bates & Others v Post Office Ltd was a group legal action taken by 555 subpostmasters against Post Office Limited (POL), commonly known as the Post Office. It was heard by Justice Fraser in the High Court between 2017 and 2019. Six judgments were handed down, two of them dealing with substantive matters while the other four dealt with procedural matters. The Common Issues trial examined the contract between the subpostmasters and the Post Office and found largely in favour of the claimants, while the Horizon Issues trial found that Horizon, the Post Office accounting software, contained bugs, errors and defects that could cause shortfalls in the subpostmasters' accounts. Further scheduled trials were not held, as the claimants and the Post Office settled after the Horizon Issues trial.

Contents

Background

Subpostmasters are self-employed business operators, who run Post Office branches under contract to the state-owned Post Office. [lower-alpha 1] In 1999 the Post Office rolled out new electronic point of sale and accounting software, Horizon (produced and maintained by Fujitsu), to its network of over 11,000 branches. [1] Soon after the installation of Horizon, subpostmasters started to experience unexplained shortfalls in the accounts, which, under the terms of their contracts, they were expected to make good with their own money, leading to debt and, on occasion, bankruptcy. The Post Office terminated contracts and pursued subpostmasters through the civil and criminal courts over shortfalls generated by Horizon. Between 1999 and 2015, over 900 subpostmasters were wrongly prosecuted for false accounting and theft. The majority of those prosecutions were private prosecutions brought by the Post Office rather than the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). [2]

In 2009, the media started to take an interest in Horizon problems, with Computer Weekly breaking the story in May 2009. Later that year Alan Bates, a former subpostmaster who had lost his business due to Horizon shortfalls, set up the Justice For Subpostmasters Alliance (JFSA). Under pressure from the JFSA and a group of Members of Parliament (MPs), led by James Arbuthnot, the Post Office in 2013 appointed forensic accountants Second Sight to investigate Horizon prosecutions. Second Sight were sacked in 2015 after becoming critical of the Post Office’s conduct, and a mediation scheme was closed without reaching any resolution between the Post Office and subpostmasters. [3]

The case

After the collapse of the mediation scheme, Bates, who had already consulted two firms of solicitors about the possibility of taking legal action against the Post Office, was able to persuade a new firm of solicitors, Freeths of Nottingham, and litigation funders Therium to take on the case. Bates and forensic accountant Kay Linell formed a steering group to lead the 555 claimants who joined the case. [4] [5] : 438  A group litigation order was granted by Senior Master Fontaine on 22 March 2017 and approved by the President of the Queen's Bench Division, with Justice Fraser appointed as managing judge. [6] : 1 

The subpostmasters claimed to “have been subjected to unlawful treatment by the Defendant causing them significant financial losses (including loss of their business and property), bankruptcy, prosecutions, serving community or custodial sentences, distress and related ill-health, stigma and/or reputational damage”. [7] : 326  The Post Office denied the claims, and submitted a counterclaim. [8] : 1  The case was scheduled to be heard over a number of trials at the Rolls Building in London. [4]

The claimants were represented in court by a team from Henderson Chambers led by Patrick Green KC, instructed by Freeths, while the Post Office lead barristers included David Cavender KC and Anthony de Garr Robinson KC, both from One Essex Court, instructed by solicitors Womble Bond Dickinson.

Judgments

Six judgments were issued over the course of the litigation. Two of them (judgments 3 and 6) were substantive while the other four (judgments 1, 2, 4 and 5) were procedural. [9]

Judgment No 1 Applications to alter timetable – November 2017

Referring to costs and delay, the judge said, "Fitting hearings around their availability has all the disadvantages of doing an intricate jigsaw puzzle, with none of the fun associated with that activity." [6]

Judgment No 2 Application to strike out evidence – October 2018

This decision followed a case management hearing and dismissed an application to strike out roughly one-quarter of the lead claimants' evidence – more than 160 paragraphs. Justice Fraser said: "The application by the defendant to strike out this evidence appears to be an attempt to... keep evidence with which the defendant does not agree from being aired at all". [10] The judge commented that adverse publicity for the Post Office was not a matter of concern for the court if the evidence was relevant and admissible. He also warned against the aggressive conduct of litigation, particularly in a group action of this nature. The application was dismissed. [10]

Judgment No 3 Common Issues – March 2019

The Common Issues trial was held over 15 days in November and December 2018, with the judgment handed down on 15 March 2019. [7] The subpostmasters and the Post Office had identified 23 issues relating to the contractual relationship between them and about which they disagreed. [lower-alpha 2] The judge made findings on each so that obligations under all iterations of the contracts would be settled, both retrospectively and prospectively. [11] Of the 23 issues, only 7 were decided in the Post Office's favour. The parties agreed that broadly the claimants were more successful. [12] : 33–34  Issue 1, concerning whether the contracts were relational contracts, was described by the judge as one of the most important issues. [7] : 31  He found subpostmasters' contracts are relational contracts: "This means that the Post Office is not entitled to act in a way that would be considered commercially unacceptable by reasonable and honest people". [7] : 711 

The judgment criticised testimony given by Post Office witnesses in court. Referring to Angela van den Bogerd (Head of Partnerships at the Post Office), the judge said: "[she] did not give me frank evidence, and sought to obfuscate matters, and mislead me." [13] He further criticised the Post Office, saying that at times it appeared "to conduct itself as though it is answerable only to itself. [7] : 523 

When the judgment was delivered, the Post Office said it would appeal. On 23 May, the judge refused the Post Office permission to appeal and set out his reasons on 17 June. [14] The Post Office applied for permission to appeal that refusal. Lord Justice Coulson refused permission to appeal and handed down his written reasons on 22 November 2019. [15]

Judgment No 4 Application for recusal – April 2019

The Post Office brought in Lord Grabiner to make an application to Justice Fraser that he recuse himself on the grounds of apparent bias. When asked to explain the delay in making the application, which was submitted after the start of the Horizon Issues trial, Grabiner replied that the decision had been made at board level and he had needed time to get up to speed with the case, adding that the application to recuse had "been looked at by another very senior person before the decision was taken..." [16] : 279  The recusal application was opposed by the subpostmasters and dismissed by the judge. [16] : 24, 289 

The Post Office made an application to appeal the judge's refusal to recuse himself. It was refused by Lord Justice Coulson in the Court of Appeal, who ruled that the application for recusal had been without substance and had been rightly rejected by Justice Fraser. He sympathised with the view of the subpostmasters that the application for recusal had been intended to lead to the collapse of the Horizon Issues trial, although he did not reach any conclusions on the point. He described Grabiner's remark about "another very senior person" as threatening. [17] It was later revealed that the senior person was Lord Neuberger. [18] The Post Office agreed to pay £300,000 in costs for the failed recusal application. The Post Office's own costs of the recusal application were over £212,000, which including £34,165 for solicitors and £174,815 for counsel. [19]

Judgment No 5 Common Issues Costs – June 2019

In this judgment, costs were awarded to the subpostmasters for the Common Issues trial, subject to a 10% reduction to reflect the fact that they had not been successful in 7 of the issues. [12] The Post Office asked for the costs to be reserved until the end of litigation, as they claimed that an interim decision "would demonstrate a pre-determination as to the overall outcome". The judge saw this as a "veiled or implied threat", similar to that issued in the recusal application and dismissed the Post Office's argument. [12] He also expressed concern about the high costs that both sides were incurring in the litigation. [19]

Judgment No 6 Horizon issues – December 2019

This judgment concerns the operation and functionality of the Horizon system itself. The hearings took place over 21 days in March, April, June and July 2019. The 313 page judgment was published in December 2019. [12] Justice Fraser found that bugs, errors and defects in Horizon rendered it unreliable and had the potential to cause discrepancies in subpostmasters' accounts. [20] He was critical of the Post Office's evidence, describing it as "bare assertions and denials that ignore what has actually occurred... [amounting] to the 21st century equivalent of maintaining that the earth is flat". [4] He considered that the evidence given by Fujitsu manager Stephen Parker to be not even "remotely accurate". [8] : 495–498  He also criticised the Post Office for adopting a threatening attitude towards subpostmasters and even accusing them of criminal offences in cross examination. [8] : 64(2) 

Settlement

A draft of judgment no 6 was sent to the parties in November 2019 and the claimants, who by that time had run out of funding, agreed a settlement of £56.75 million with the Post Office in December 2019. After legal costs of £46 million were deducted, the 555 claimants were left with less than £12 million to be divided between them. [21] When details were made public in August 2020, it emerged that one condition of the agreement had been the setting up of a compensation scheme for all those subpostmasters (not just the 555) who had suffered losses due to Horizon. [5] : 437–440  The government later announced that it would provide further compensation to the litigants through the GLO compensation scheme, while convicted claimants became eligible for compensation as their convictions were overturned. [22]

See also

Notes

  1. ↑ A few of the claimants were employed directly by the Post Office in larger Crown branches or were subpostmasters' managers and assistants; for convenience they are referred to as subpostmasters.
  2. ↑ The issues were referred to as "common" as they were common to most of the claimants.

Related Research Articles

In English civil litigation, costs are the lawyers' fees and disbursements of the parties.

Sir Peter Winston Smith, abbreviated to Peter Smith J in judgements, is a former High Court judge who sat in the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice in England and Wales from 5 April 2002 to 27 October 2017. He was the subject of comment and investigation in relation to his judicial behaviour in various circumstances. He retired on 28 October 2017.

A group litigation order is an order of a court in England and Wales, which permits a number of claims which give rise to common or related issues to be managed collectively.

In law, intervention is a procedure to allow a nonparty, called intervenor to join ongoing litigation, either as a matter of right or at the discretion of the court, without the permission of the original litigants. The basic rationale for intervention is that a judgment in a particular case may affect the rights of nonparties, who ideally should have the right to be heard.

Womble Bond Dickinson is a transatlantic law firm formed in 2017 as a result of a merger between UK-based Bond Dickinson LLP and US-based Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, LLP. The combination followed a strategic alliance announcement made in 2016. The firm has 32 locations across the United States and the United Kingdom offering services in 12 different sectors.

The National Federation of SubPostmasters (NFSP) is a membership organisation, which represents subpostmasters in the United Kingdom. Subpostmasters are self-employed business operators, approved by Post Office Ltd to act as their agents in running Post Office branches (outlets). In Jan 2023, the NFSP had 6727 members who operated approximately 9,300 post office branches. Post Office Ltd is contractually obliged to consult the NFSP on behalf of subpostmasters.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">George Leggatt, Lord Leggatt</span> British judge (born 1957)

George Andrew Midsomer Leggatt, Lord Leggatt, is a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, the highest court of law in the United Kingdom.

The British Post Office scandal, also called the Horizon IT scandal, involved the Post Office pursuing thousands of innocent subpostmasters for apparent financial shortfalls caused by faults in Horizon, an accounting software system developed by Fujitsu. Between 1999 and 2015, more than 900 subpostmasters were convicted of theft, fraud and false accounting based on faulty Horizon data, with about 700 of these prosecutions carried out by the Post Office. Other subpostmasters were prosecuted but not convicted, forced to cover shortfalls caused by Horizon with their own money, or had their contracts terminated. The court cases, criminal convictions, imprisonments, loss of livelihoods and homes, debts, and bankruptcies led to stress, illness, family breakdowns and at least four suicides. In 2024, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak described the scandal as one of the greatest miscarriages of justice in British history.

<i>Erlam v Rahman</i>

Erlam and others v Rahman and another [2015] EWHC 1215 (QB) is an English election court case challenging the 2014 election of Lutfur Rahman as the Mayor of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets. On 23 April 2015, Election Commissioner Richard Mawrey voided Rahman's election under the Representation of the People Act 1983 on the grounds of corrupt and illegal practices by him and his agents, and general corruption so extensively prevailing so to reasonably supposed to have affected the election. Rahman's official election agent Alibor Choudhury was ordered to vacate his own office of councillor in the ward of Stepney Green for being guilty of corrupt and illegal practices.

<i>Evangelou v McNicol</i> English legal case

Christine Evangelou and others v Iain McNicol (Labour Party) [2016] EWCA Civ 817 is an English contract law case brought by five members of the Labour Party of the United Kingdom against its General Secretary, Iain McNicol on behalf of the whole party, concerning the eligibility of members to vote in the party's leadership election of 2016. The claimants came to court to challenge the decision of the party's National Executive Committee to bar members from voting in the election if they joined the party after 12 January 2016 (i.e. less than six months before the start of voting). This was due to affect approximately 130,000 new members (around one quarter of the party's total membership). The judge at first instance sided with the claimants, although this decision was overturned on appeal. On 14 August, it was announced that the claimants would not be challenging this decision in the Supreme Court.

<i>Lungowe v Vedanta Resources plc</i> Legal case heard by the UK Supreme Court

Lungowe v. Vedanta Resources plc [2019] UKSC 20 is a UK company law and English tort law case, concerning business liability for human rights violations, environmental damage and the duty of care owed by a parent company.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Paula Vennells</span> British businesswoman and priest (born 1959)

Paula Anne Vennells is a British former businesswoman who was the chief executive officer (CEO) of Post Office Limited from 2012 to 2019, years which saw the continuing prosecution of innocent subpostmasters and a very costly and unsuccessful attempt to defend a group action. She is also an ordained Anglican priest who voluntarily ceased her clerical duties in 2021.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Peter Fraser (judge)</span> British judge (born 1963)

Sir Peter Donald Fraser PC, styled The Right Honourable Lord Justice Fraser, is a Judge of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales.

<i>A and Others v National Blood Authority and Another</i> Consumer law case involving claimants infected with hepatitis C

A and Others v National Blood Authority and Another, also known as the Hepatitis C Litigation, was a landmark product liability case of 2001 primarily concerning blood transfusions but also blood products or transplanted organs, all of which were infected with hepatitis C, where liability was established under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 and the Product Liability Directive (85/374/EEC) even in the absence of the ability to test to ascertain which blood transfusions were defective. The claimants were 114 individuals, six of whom were considered lead plaintiffs and given close consideration by the judge, Mr Justice Burton. Several of the claimants were minors who had become infected with Hepatitis C in the course of their treatment for leukaemia. The defendants were the National Blood Authority (NBA) and in respect of Wales, the Velindre NHS Trust, Cardiff. The court found that the UK government should have implemented measures to screen donated blood for HCV by March 1990, rather than September 1991, and that surrogate testing should have been introduced within the United Kingdom no later than 1 March 1988.

<i>HIV Haemophilia Litigation</i> Legal action by haemophiliacs infected with HIV through blood products

The HIV Haemophilia Litigation [1990] 41 BMLR 171, [1990] 140 NLJR 1349 (CA), [1989] E N. 2111, also known as AMcG002, and HHL, was a legal claim by 962 plaintiffs, mainly haemophiliacs, who were infected with HIV as a result of having been treated with blood products in the late 1970s and early 1980s. The first central defendants were the then Department of Health, with other defendants being the Licensing Authority of the time, (MCA), the CSM, the CBLA, and the regional health authorities of England and Wales. In total, there were 220 defendants in the action.

<i>CN v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care</i> Judicial review permission appeal challenging non-inclusion of hepatitis B

CN v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care [2022] EWCA Civ 86 was an appeal against the refusal of permission to apply for judicial review to challenge the infected blood support scheme administered by the NHS Business Services Authority (NHSBSA) for non-inclusion of those infected with chronic Hepatitis B virus. The appeal was based on the grounds that the exclusion of those infected with HBV from the England Infected Blood Support Scheme (EIBSS) was unreasonable and discriminatory, contrary to article 14 when read in conjunction with article 8 and article 1 protocol 1 (A1P1) of the ECHR. The appellant also claimed that there was different treatment and that the failure to include those infected with HBV was unreasonable, and that the original application for review should not have been deemed out of time.

<i>Thompson v Arnold</i> Legal case concerning damages already awarded where death ensued

Thompson & Ors v Arnold[2007] EWHC 1875 (QB), was a law on damages case where the existing case law reaffirmed that damages awarded for a claim for personal injury were deemed to have already been awarded, even if death ensued as a consequence of personal injury. Where a claimant had settled their damages claim, or pursued it to trial, their dependants would have no right of action under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 if the injury later proved fatal. Langstaff J. held that Read v Great Eastern Railway had been correctly decided as a matter of statutory construction and neither Article 6 nor Article 8 of the ECHR had been infringed. The claim was dismissed.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Alan Bates (subpostmaster)</span> British campaigner and former subpostmaster

Sir Alan Bates is a former subpostmaster and a leading campaigner for victims of the British Post Office scandal, in which thousands of subpostmasters were accused of dishonesty when faulty Post Office accounting software created shortfalls in their accounts. After the Post Office terminated his contract in 2003 over a false shortfall, he sought out other subpostmasters in the same position and went on to found the Justice For Subpostmasters Alliance in 2009. The group took the Post Office to court and, following two favourable judgments in Bates & Others v Post Office Ltd, accepted a settlement of £57.75 million, which left the 555 claimants with little money after legal fees were paid. Bates has continued to campaign for fair compensation for subpostmasters. He was knighted in June 2024 for his campaigning and the following month received an honorary degree from Bangor University.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jo Hamilton (subpostmaster)</span> British campaigner and former subpostmaster

Jo Hamilton is a former subpostmaster and a passionate campaigner for justice for victims of the British Post Office scandal. She ran a village post office in Hampshire from 2001 until 2006, when she was suspended and then wrongly prosecuted for shortfalls caused by the Post Office faulty accounting software, Horizon. She was convicted of false accounting, received a supervision order and had to pay the Post Office £36,000 although it was money she did not owe. Her treatment at the hands of the Post Office had a devastating impact on her health, family and finances. She went on to be a founding member of the Justice for Subpostmasters Alliance (JFSA) and one of the 555 litigants in the successful group legal action of Bates & Others v Post Office Ltd. Her criminal conviction was overturned in April 2021.

References

  1. ↑ "What is the UK's Post Office IT scandal about and who is involved?". The Guardian . 11 January 2024.
  2. ↑ "Post Office Horizon scandal: Why hundreds were wrongly prosecuted". BBC . 24 May 2024. Archived from the original on 5 June 2024. Retrieved 7 June 2024.
  3. ↑ "'Systemically, seriously wrong': the 20-year quest to reveal Post Office IT scandal". The Guardian. 12 January 2024.
  4. 1 2 3 Brooks, Richard; Wallis, Nick (1 April 2020). "Justice lost in the post" (PDF). Private Eye .
  5. 1 2 Wallis, Nick (2022). The Great Post Office Scandal. Bath: Bath Publishing. ISBN   978-1-7390992-0-6.
  6. 1 2 Bates & Ors v Post Office Ltd [2017] EWHC 2844(QB) , [2017] 4 WLR 221(10 November 2017), High Court (England and Wales)
  7. 1 2 3 4 5 Bates & Ors v Post Office Ltd (No 3 "Common Issues") [2019] EWHC 606(QB) (15 March 2019), High Court (England and Wales)
  8. 1 2 3 Bates & Ors v Post Office Ltd (No 6 "Horizon Issues") [2019] EWHC 3408(QB) (15 March 2019), High Court (England and Wales)
  9. ↑ Wallis, Nick (23 August 2019). "All the Judgments". Post Office Trial.
  10. 1 2 Bates & Ors v Post Office Ltd (No 2) [2018] EWHC 2698(QB) (17 October 2018), High Court (England and Wales)
  11. ↑ Wallis, Nick (5 April 2019). "Common Issues trial judgment: cheat sheet". Post Office Trial.
  12. 1 2 3 4 Bates & Ors v Post Office Ltd (No 5: Common Issues Costs) [2019] EWHC 1373(QB) (7 June 2019), High Court (England and Wales)
  13. ↑ Loader, Gwyn (3 December 2020). "FAW appoints Post Office director who 'misled court'". BBC.
  14. ↑ Wallis, Nick (9 July 2021). "High Court refusal to let the Post Office appeal first trial judgment". Post Office Trial.
  15. ↑ "Post Office appeal dismissed by court as costs soar". The Law Society Gazette . 22 November 2019.
  16. 1 2 Bates & Ors v Post Office Ltd (No 4 Recusal Application) [2019] EWHC 871(QB) (9 April 2019), High Court (England and Wales)
  17. ↑ "Appeal throws out Post Office bid to replace judge". The Law Society Gazette. 14 May 2019.
  18. ↑ Wallis, Nick (11 February 2022). "Recusal top dog revealed". Post Office Scandal.
  19. 1 2 "Bates v Post Office: Costs hit £25m as both parties warned about spending". The Law Society Gazette. 10 June 2019.
  20. ↑ "Post Office 'attacked and disparaged' sub postmasters, judge finds". The Law Society Gazette. 16 December 2019.
  21. ↑ "Post Office victims say settlement agreement 'obtained under duress'". The Law Society Gazette. 15 December 2020.
  22. ↑ "How do the Post Office scandal compensation schemes work?". BBC. 27 February 2024.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.