THE SELF INFLICTED WOUNDS OF A “TRUSTED BRAND”/”CAPRICIOUS MID-VICTORIAN FACTORY-OWNER”: THE DANGERS OF PUTTING YOUR CASE TOO HIGH
The judgment of Lord Justice Coulson rejecting the Post Office’s application for permission to appeal is available on “Post Office Trial“, a case that has already been looked at several times on this blog. Here we have a critical appraisal of an attempt to appeal that was, in effect, an attempt to appeal findings of fact.
“The PO describes itself as ‘the nation’s most trusted brand’. Yet this application is founded on the premise that the nation’s most trusted brand was not obliged to treat their SPMs with good faith, and instead entitled to treat them in capricious or arbitrary ways which would not be unfamiliar to a mid-Victorian factory-owner”
A number of post-masters and former Post-Office employees are bringing an action relating to (it is said) defects in Post Office systems leading to the creation of artificial shortfalls for which the claimants were responsible. There is a Group Litigation Order. The trial judge found against the Post Office on certain preliminary issues. The Post Office sought permission to appeal.
COULSON LJ’S JUDGMENT IN REFUSING PERMISSION TO APPEAL
The Post Office’s application for permission to appeal was refused. It was held that the appeal amounted, in effect, to attempts to challenge findings of fact.