Thread by @nickwallis

This application does several things (even if it is unsuccessful), all of which favour the @PostOffice

1) It buys them time to work out what their strategy is going to be in the face of the first judgment.

2) It massively ramps up the cost for the claimants.

3) It ensures...

@PostOffice … that the revelations which came out today will be buried.

4) that any eventual settlement in favour of the claimants will be less than it might have been before today. Why?

@PostOffice The defendants, being owned by the state, are funded by the state. We are effectively funding this litigation.

The claimants are funded by a group who, if successful will want a return on what, let’s face it, is a very risky and very large investment.

@PostOffice If the claimants are successful, the funders will get their investment back, plus a multiple, which could be anything between 10% and 30%.

Even if the (successful) claimants are awarded ALL costs, the multiple has to come out of the damages. Damages which would be going to...

@PostOffice … the claimant Subpostmasters.

Now - just because a trial drags on, or one party drags it out, there is no scope for punitive damages. The claimants have made a claim, and the amount they can claim (if successful) will be decided..

@PostOffice … according to a formula which will be worked out once the trials concluded and the judge’s findings are known.

There is no scope in that formula for punitive damages or a reflection of the amount of time taken to complete the litigation.

@PostOffice If it was decided now - it would be roughly the same sum as it would be in a year’s time.

But of course the costs keep growing, and so does the share of any settlement for the claimants which will go to the funders.

The @PostOffice’s application to recuse the judge...

@PostOffice … by delaying this trial (possibly for several months) will ensure the claimants will get less money (net) even if they win.

@PostOffice This raises the possibility that if the @PostOffice successfully manages to drag the litigation on to the point at which the multiple on the funders’ costs would exceed the likely or possible damages, the claimants, if they win, could receive nothing.

@PostOffice Because it would be swallowed up by the funders’ multiple.

The judge has already expressed considerable reservations about the cost of this litigation and the speed at which it is progressing...

@PostOffice .. and remember it is YOUR MONEY the Post Office is spending - see @tonyrcollins' blog on the @PostOffice’s attempt to use some of the money the govt gave it for its branch transformation scheme to fund this litigation, uncovered by @Jusmasel2015 ukcampaign4change.com/2019/03/14/jud…

But remember the @PostOffice believes this claim against them "lacks merit". Attempting to settle would cost millions and it can't just hand over public money without a ruling. Attempting to remove the judge because you don't like his conclusions tho.. wow. That is a power play.

@PostOffice @threadreaderapp unroll please