PG "The reality is no one expected the Post Office to terminate on 3 months notice without cause.” #postofficetrial
Nothing in this thread is a direct quote unless it is in direct quotes.
PG says this goes to a “very close proximity in the nature of the relationship created to an employment situation.”
PG “I do."
responsible for their branch accounts. There is no
transaction that enters their
accounts without their
consent (or their consent
by proxy through their assistants)
PG raises 2 issues on this.
PG the actual status of what is in the branch is changed in the accounts to make Horizon match the previous stock deficit to now being a cash deficit when that is not what...
PG “she’s agreed - I hope it’s not unfair to call it a fake transaction…”
J - I don’t think this represents a great forensic breakthrough on your part
[but they agree that fake against real in this circ is different]
Judge setting out the “gulf” between the sides:
Claimants say before a dispute can be raised they HAVE to accept the debt which initiates debt recovery...
PG now talking about the drafting of the “famous” clauses 93 and 94 in the Generic Defence, saying it is “quite...
It is about the investigation function when it comes to a loss and how much of the onus is on the SPM to help the PO work out where a loss may have come from.
an audit is because “we can see something in an account which isn’t quite right”
Now talking about this Detica report which discusses ability to remotely monitor what’s happening in a branch...
POLSAP tracking trends of unusual behaviour.
J it doesn’t advance your argument - the PO is saying activity or unusual situations could lead to an audit being initiated
PG not trying to construct a timing point
J but it was part...
PG it was
[he says it’s about making the wider point with the issue of timing removed]
PG quotes from it: "A TC notification sent by PO to a branch is a proposal not an instruction and it does not take effect unless accepted by the SPM concerned."
Judge askes why
PG “the accept now button has to be pressed, then you get the three options, make good by cash, make good by cheque and settle centrally"
Mr Cavender is on his feet “Yes.”
“The account is the account stated subject to dispute the SPM raises with the helpline.”
J “Yeah, alright."
J says it’s PG’s point to make and he is sure Mr Cavender can make his point in due course.
Moves on to Liz Stockdale (lead claimant)’s evidence.
Judge has asked for all references in Opus (the court online viewer and transcribing software) to solicitors with specific regard to Liz Stockdale’s case.
A frisson just went through court.
PG - we contend it’s very unclear but gropes towards broadly the same point...
They disappear into legal argument about “express wording” “construction”...
J agrees, though goes back to construction...
J there is also a quaint little appendix buried in here which deals with things like scales etc
J 12.12 is about losses which
J in SPMC there is a strict responsibility for cash and stock and a fault based responsiblity for losses
J so are you saying NTC and SPMC is broadly the same in construction
PG on construction in result
J on construction then. And do you reach that conclusion as the NTC being an evolution of SPMC or entirely separate
we move on.
J accepts this
He is making the point that in the light of what has been heard in the trial the PO’s argument (outlined in 93 and 94 of generic defence and reiterated) re burden of proof doesn’t make sense.
J How are you doing for time?
PG “We’re in good shape my Lord.
PG “Though it rather depends on the list of questions you have for me.
J Oh it’s very modest….
J in the spirit of last week indulgence, we start again at 2.05pm
The indulgence is that we’ve been given an extra 5 mins for lunch. Which I’ve spent typing that exchange up.
PG now going over the moment when Angela van den Bogerd was “mistaken” in her assertion she was coming to a piece of evidence cold.
Her WS for the forthcoming trial in March was shown to her and she remembered she wasn’t coming to it cold.
PG points out that in her own WS Angela vd Bogerd admits the point is not relevant to Horizon.
Judge says this is a secondary...
PG accepts and moves on.
J doesn’t think this matters
PG says yes.
J Good - next point. Though that last one was barely a point at all.
J - I’m not trying to be unhelpful but I am genuinely struggling to understand what you are seeking to do. The PO says the losses/gains statement...
PG it’s very much wrong
J we know you think it is wrong. It’s pretty simpl to work out whether it’s right or wrong. I just want to know why you are drawing it to my attention.
PG the post office is being unfair because we are right and therefore it is not unfair to point that out.
J I understand.
We got to the NFSP.
PG says their attack is relevant
J says also the PO raised the NFSP as an organisation which does not support the claimant
par 573: "But in any event, it is clear that Mr Bates did receive the SPMC on 30 March 1998, together with the notification that his application had been successful. ...
PG says the evidence on which this is made is unreliable.
J understood. Remind me your case on Mr Bates contract of formation would be when?
PG 31 March 1998
J she probly had of copy and could have asked for one
PG day after her husband’s death 4 Aug 1999
J noting for the record there is a gulf between the parties on Mr Sabir’s understanding of English, but suffice to...
PG says there is a difference to the PO view of his ability to remember what happened to him than the claimants.
J so what you’re saying is that you would like me to prefer your reading of Mr Sabir’s evidence...
PG yes my Lord. In fact I’d like you to do that with all the witnesses.
J I thought you might.
First one is a typo in an xe of Mr Beal which suggests the opposite to the line of questioning. Agree it is a typo that PG has missed. J isn’t sure it’ll be important but wanted to check.
PG There isn’t
J I would like a list of them. No submissions, gloss. Just dates. With references to where they’ve been mentioned in the trial
PG yes my Lord
J letters to/from Mrs Stockdale?
PG I’ve got them
Mr Cavender on his feet “are these agreed documents”
J I just want anything that has been mentioned in the trial. I am not asking for anything that hasn’t been referred to by either of you
J final point: I know that of the docs that were disclosed to the LC there was some disagreement about the being made part of the trial bundle. Notwithstanding that… if I look at a doc that is opposed what attention should I pay to that
DC we say my Lord you should be careful as to whether more weight should be given to Horizon or Breach… we say no findings of fact or comment on anything that relates to those trials.
J is that right? [makes legal point about construction of PO case]
DC no I think that’s mistaken
J well it might be better to deal with that tomorrow.
DC we are not asking you to. He explains what he is asking him to do
[legal argument going over my head again]
PO QC yes.
Judge rises. That is the end of today.
Thanks for reading. #postofficetrial