header-logo header-logo

02 July 2020
Categories: Legal News , Costs , Compensation
printer mail-detail

Subpostmasters fight on after Horizon compensation letdown

More than 500 former subpostmasters caught up in the faulty Post Office Horizon computer scandal are seeking justice after recovering only five per cent of their losses when the Post Office settled the case due to the Jackson reforms

The Justice for Subpostmaster Alliance (JFSA) is bringing a complaint to the Parliamentary Ombudsman on behalf of its 555 members. The subpostmasters had their contracts terminated. Many lost their businesses and homes, a number were charged with false accounting and theft, and some even received custodial sentences―yet it was all because of mistakes made by the faulty computer system.

The Post Office subsequently paid £57m to settle the case last year. However, the JFSA says just £11.5m actually made it into the hands of the subpostmasters involved due to the costs of bringing the case. The JFSA says this represents, on average, about 5% of their actual losses.

The JFSA has now instructed law firm Stevens Bolton to act on its behalf, and is submitting a complaint to the Parliamentary Ombudsman alleging maladministration within the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS). The government was the sole shareholder in the Post Office when the scandal happened.

Sarah Murray, head of dispute resolution at Stevens & Bolton, said: ‘Members of the JFSA have been through so much, as a result of the wrongs suffered at the hands of the Post Office.

‘The failure of the government to intervene has exacerbated their suffering.’

Kay Linnell, forensic accountant and adviser to JFSA, said: ‘This is about recovering the considerable legal costs incurred by members in taking the Post Office to court to expose inherent faults in the Post Office’s Horizon computer system, the incompetence of the Post Office and the failings of the government, who as the only shareholder, failed to manage its subsidiary.

‘The 555 claimants who were brave enough to join this group litigation, having already suffered such personal anguish and financial loss, have borne the additional financial burden of funding this action. They cannot recover their funding costs as a result of the Jackson Reforms of 1 April 2013. 

‘It cannot be right that individual impecunious litigants, who have succeeded in their case, are excluded from the equitable repayment of the financing costs. We are still striving for justice to be done and we need help from the public now.’

The JFSA has set up a CrowdJustice platform to help it fund its legal fight. See: www.crowdjustice.com/case/post-office-victims.

Categories: Legal News , Costs , Compensation
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

WSP Solicitors—David Ashcroft & Jessica O’Shea

WSP Solicitors—David Ashcroft & Jessica O’Shea

Commercial property and child law teams expand with senior hires

Duxton Hill Chambers—Lucas Bastin KC & Joshua Hiew

Duxton Hill Chambers—Lucas Bastin KC & Joshua Hiew

Set expands London and Singapore offering with senior international disputes hires

Gilson Gray—Gregor Duthie & Stephen Forsyth

Gilson Gray—Gregor Duthie & Stephen Forsyth

Firm strengthens real estate and litigation teams with partner promotions

NEWS
Behind the profession’s polished exterior, lawyers are ‘internally drained rather than physically tired’, according to a stark assessment of burnout in legal practice
Five years after the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 came into force, concerns remain that the family courts continue to minimise allegations of abuse in child contact disputes
Uber has built a formidable strategy for insulating itself from liability for drivers’ conduct, but the legal terrain differs sharply between the US and England and Wales
The House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Act 2026 marks a constitutional watershed by severing the centuries-old link between hereditary titles and automatic membership of the upper chamber
The Civil Justice Council’s review of Part III of the Solicitors Act 1974 could mark the end of what one commentator calls an ‘outdated’ and overly technical regime governing solicitor-client fee disputes
back-to-top-scroll