Could the Post Office sue its own former directors and advisers regarding the Horizon scandal?
Are there wrongs within the Limitation Act?
Time is a problem for the Post Office, and its government owners, in making any legal claim against Fujitsu.
This is because any claim would probably be for breach of contract, and the limitation period for suing for breach of contract is normally six years from the breach.
Unless there was concealment - and here it is plain that the Post Office knew there were serious problems by 2013 (and no doubt for a long time before) - it is rare for a court to extend the limitation period.
At the House of Commons business select committee hearing today Fujitsu accepted a “moral obligation” to provide compensation. This indicates that Fujitsu’s response is PR-driven rather than strictly legalistic, as there is probably no legal obligation to compensate for any breaches obvious before six years ago.
(There may be a possible indemnity that may still be legally live in the Post Office Horizon contract, outside the limitation period, but that is unlikely.)
*
But.
The Post Office, and its government owners, may have claims against its own former directors and advisers for any wrongs in respect of how the scandal has been dealt with in the last six years.
In essence: could Paula Vennells and others be sued?
It would be interesting if any such recovery is sought.
I'd much prefer that POL used it's extensive experience and brought some private prosecutions for attempts to pervert the course if justice against their former staff
Even if the evidence isn't there to make it the case, based on their historic practice, I don't see why that should stop them
It might not change the outcome, but I'd have thought that a large-scale IT contract would be executed as a deed and have a 12-year limitation period. Certainly large-scale construction contracts usually have a 12-year limitation period and, in some cases, even longer.