Post Office’s full and final settlement with Horizon scandal victims in plain English

Whenever the government is asked whether it will give fair compensation to the subpostmasters who defeated the Post Office in court in the Horizon scandal trial, it reels off the same line: “The settlement reached in late 2019 was full and final, and the government cannot accept any further request for payment.”

But what does it mean?

There are a lot of contrasting views about the £57.75m settlement, and there is a lot of nonsense inferred around the “full and final settlement” wording in the settlement deed with the Post Office. It is either through ignorance or deliberate obfuscation by senior people who should know better, so I will try to explain, by way of example, where the wording “full and final settlement” comes in.

In the simplest of terms, the court agreed that the case would be broken down into a number of trials and each trial would cover one main issue or a group of issues, as it would be unmanageable to address everything in just one trial. While at the outset, for example, 10 issues were identified to go before the court, which it was thought could be addressed in four or five trials, the outcome of those first four or five trials may well have raised a further number of issues, requiring even more trials.

But we’ll stick with the example of 10 issues, which included the two bigger issues – the matter of the subpostmaster contract and the flaws in the Horizon computer system. Each of those issues took a whole trial, with the Post Office doing everything it could to run us out of funds. This included serving an application to recuse the judge, appealing Judgment Number 3 (Common Issues) to the Court of Appeal and holding endless costs and disclosure hearings, so that by the end of the second trial (Horizon), the group had run up a bill of £46m.

However, at this point in the legal action, conducted under civil procedure rules, we were encouraged to take part in mediation discussions to settle before we got to trial three, which was due to start in March 2020. The Post Office was keen to pursue this avenue with us, and we thought it wouldn’t hurt to listen to what it had to say.

Cutting a long story short, and one which is a matter of history, we entered into a compromise settlement agreement by consent with the Post Office because, put simply, we did not have the funds to carry on with the case – and pulling out was not a viable option.

“We entered into a compromise settlement agreement with the Post Office because we simply did not have the funds to carry on with the case – and pulling out was not a viable option”