Define and publish meaning of full and fair financial redress
Post Office Horizon Inquiry · Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry: Final Report · Issued 8 July 2025 · Addressed to: Post Office Ltd, Department for Business and Trade
Source — verbatim from the inquiry
●Inquiry recommendation
The Minister and/or the Department in conjunction with the Post Office shall make a public announcement explaining what is meant by the phrase "full and fair financial redress". Such an explanation should indicate that claimants should be awarded sums which are equivalent to those which they would receive in civil litigation brought before a judge in England and Wales, assuming that the judge hearing the civil claims awarded damages at the top end of the appropriate range of damages. The explanation should also include a statement to the effect that, if fairness demands it in a particular case, a decision maker may depart from the established legal principles which would normally govern the assessment of damages in civil litigation.
Post Office Horizon Inquiry, Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry: Final Report · 8 Jul 2025 Source PDF →
Published evidence summary
Publicly available evidence relating to this recommendation:
- The Department for Business and Trade published a statement on 9 October 2025 explaining that "full and fair" means claimants should receive sums equivalent to civil litigation damages at the top end of the appropriate range, with discretion to depart from established legal principles when fairness demands (Government response to the Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry report (volume 1), DBT, 9 October 2025).
- The Business and Trade Select Committee noted the government published this statement defining "full and fair redress" on 9 October 2025 (Business and Trade Select Committee evidence session, January 2026).
Response — verbatim from government
●Department for Business and Trade
Department for Business and Trade accepts the Inquiry's recommendation and has published a statement explaining what is meant by the phrase "full and fair financial redress". The statement indicates that claimants should be awarded sums which are equivalent to those which they would receive in civil litigation brought before a judge in England and Wales, assuming that the judge hearing the civil claims awarded damages at the top end of the appropriate range of damages. The statement also includes that, if fairness demands it in a particular case, a decision maker may depart from the established legal principles which would normally govern the assessment of damages in civil litigation.
Department for Business and Trade · 9 Oct 2025 Written response →
Evidence trail — what's actually happened since
- 2 Mar 2026 DBT accepted the Inquiry's recommendation that it should publish a statement explaining the term "full and fair redress": https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/post-office-horizon-it-inquiry-statement-on-full-and-fair-financial-redress. This was published on 9 October 2025 alongside the Department's response to Volume 1 of the Inquiry report. Source →
- 31 Jan 2026 Verification: Government published formal response to Volume 1 recommendations on 13 October 2025, accepting 17 of 18 recommendations. Total compensation paid across all schemes: £1.38 billion as of December 2025. Volume 2 of Final Report expected 2026. Source →
- 6 Jan 2026 · Business and Trade Select Committee Business and Trade Select Committee noted the government published a statement defining "full and fair redress" on 9 October 2025. The committee examined whether this definition was being applied consistently across all three compensation schemes. View source → Confirmed Completed
Each entry above links to a primary source — gov.uk written statement, consultation response document, or inspection report. The Index does not characterise government intent; it tracks what has been published.
How this page is built
Source and Response are verbatim from primary documents. The Evidence trail records published activity since — written statements, consultation outcomes, inspection findings, parliamentary references. The Index does not paraphrase or characterise intent; it tracks what has been published. Where the evidence is the absence of action (a missed deadline, a slipped timetable), that absence is documented from primary sources rather than inferred.
This recommendation's data is verified periodically against primary sources. The Index is monitored for staleness weekly.