You are on page 1of 19
PTA Template 201 OCT Fret Anges INTHE COURT OF APPEAL, CIVIL DIVISION REF: avorouess tnt Sete 1 OMAY 2019 Post otice -v- Bates & Ors ORDER made by the Rt. Hon. Lord Justice Coulson. (On conedaraton of he spp’ nave a accompanying Qoeuments, but without an oa hearing, a weepect ct an "pplcaton for persion to appeal agaist Judgment No (Recusa REFUSED ] ease see separate document ented Resor for Rial ol Agpcaon Pein Appeal against | Judgment No (Recusa) dates 02042018 Mediation: Were permission has bean gare or the application adoume (Doss te case fa wine Cour ot Appeal Mecaton Scheme CAMS) autonatc ot categories (ee balou)? ‘Yes ote a arpa Piotcamoaras: * Nicos wowing gti prson her tha anmgatenantfamiy + Sounsaydspues; || ‘appeals + Inemtance deputes, || {+ Personal jury and cic neglgence cases; + EAT Aopoaie | + Aloberproensional negligence cases Reside tndons ana) | + Seal cortract cases below £500,000 in udgmene (cen) vale, bat ot” enant appeals where principal issue is fon-contactval | yes thee any reason notorelerto CAMS modi under hepa?” ‘est tas comer yes, please ue ease: | Nen:mio.casesDo you wish make arcorsmendation fr mediator? | Where permission has been granted, or he aplication adjourned 1 | a) ine estate (excusing ert) LO) anyexpedtion oe a = some Yh cat "ree By dita xaos oto Reasons for Refusal of Application for Permission to Appesl against Judgment Not (Recusal) dated 09.04.19) ntraduction 1, By an application dated 11 April 2019, the applicant. the Post Office the PO") seeks permission to appeal against Judgment No 4 of Fraser J Che judge") dated © April 2019. In Judgment 4 ((2019} EWHC $71 (QB), the judge refused to recuse himself from hearing and managing the ongoing group litigation in which the PO is defending tet against clams worth £18 milion- cod brought by a group of subspostmasers and mistnsses (SPMS") arising ‘out of the introduetion of a new IT system (“Horizon”) 2 Save where stated 10 she contrary all paragraph numbers refered 10 jn square brackets below are 10 Judgment 4 3. For the reasons set aut below. permission to appeal against Judgment 4 is reused, I set out the eeasons for hat conclusion in grater dtl than usual only because of the volume and mature of the critics which have been mae, and the importance ofthe group tigation to both partes. 1 donot do so because of the merits of the application ise, which in my view is without substance. 2. ContextBackground 4. The judge has already provided three lengthy judgments: Judgment No.2, ‘eating principally with the POs strike out application and questions of ‘admissibility, dated 15 October 2018 ([2018] EWC 2698 (QB); Judgment 1No3, refered wo as the Common Issues judgment, dated 1S. March 2019 {12019} WH 606 (QR): and Judgment ssa acon 5 The nex subtral, desing with the Horizon issues which are central to the complaints ofthe SPMS,is currently welladianced indeed, the unheralded recisal application as ot made until 21 March 2019, the last day ofthe factual evidence inthe Horizon sub-il The relevant actual evidence is now somplete but the expert evidenee has not yet been heard and awaits the outcome ofthis application {6 There was no application for permission to appeal in espect of Judgment 2. ‘There, the judge made a numberof eriisms ofthe stance adopted by the PO in espect of the SPMs written evidence. In addition, there is foree in the submissions at paragraphs 12 ~ 13 of the SPMS" brief statement of objection (undated, but provided on 15 April 2019). thatthe PO's strikeout application arose because the PO wished 10 adduce extensive factual evidence in their favour, but objected 0 any evidence to the contrary fm the SPMS. As they “There remains & sfstint flavour ofthat approach within the recwsal application, 7. There isa wider significance arising out of the ongoing nature of this eroup litigation, 4 ease like this is divided into sural for te convenience of the Patties and ther advisors. A judge will da his oF her bes to ensure that, particular sub-irial his or her findings of fact oF other observations are anchored to the points in isue in that sub-tial, 1 avoid staying into matters ‘which may be or might become controversial further down the line 8. Butt is necessary to be realise. Here ther is 8 single judge, who heard and considered the evidence given over many weeks, and then produced Judgment 3.0n the Common fsues that was over 1,100 substantive paragraphs in length,