Define and publish meaning of full and fair financial redress
Post Office Horizon Inquiry · Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry: Volume 1 Report · Issued 8 July 2025 · Addressed to: Post Office Ltd, Department for Business and Trade
Government responsePost Office Ltd: Accepted (Oct 2025)Department for Business and Trade: Accepted (Oct 2025)
DeliveryCabinet Office says completed (Mar 2026)
Recommendation, 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: Volume 1 Report · 8 Jul 2025 Source PDF →
Published evidence summary
AI-generated evidence summary
The Inquiry asked the government to publish a definition of full and fair redress. In a February 2026 dashboard update published in March 2026, the Cabinet Office reported that the Department for Business and Trade (DBT) published an explanatory statement on 9 October 2025 (Cabinet Office, Mar 2026). In January 2026, the Business and Trade Select Committee examined whether the definition was applied consistently across compensation schemes, noting that over 4,000 claimants still awaited final settlement (Business and Trade Select Committee, Jan 2026). In October 2025, Nigel Railton, Chair of Post Office Limited, stated that the agreed guidance instructs decision makers to adopt "a generous approach" when assessing an appropriate range of damages (Nigel Railton response, Oct 2025).
Sources
AI-generated summary of the record on this page, checked by a second model and automatic checks, 5 Oct 2026.
Government response
●Post Office Ltd · Accepted · 9 Oct 2025
Post Office worked with DBT to produce an explanation that we believe meets your recommendation, as we understand it, as far as practicable. In finalising this with DBT, we also sought input from the Independent Assessment Panel for the Horizon Shortfall Scheme (HSS). The Panel continues to play a key role in recommending full and fair outcomes under that scheme. We understand that DBT consulted senior independent advisers. Both we and DBT aimed to ensure that the explanation supports the Inquiry's aims and is written in accessible language. We understand your reference to an "appropriate range of damages" relates to non-pecuniary loss such as personal injury or injury to feelings rather than pecuniary loss, where the goal is to calculate a specific figure to restore the claimant to the position they would have been in had the wrong not occurred. In non-pecuniary cases in civil claims there can occasionally be ranges of damages (such as set out in Vento guidelines in the context of injury to feelings) which can be very broad even within different bands. We do not understand your recommendation to be that all claimants should receive the highest level of damages on any particular scale regardless of the facts. That would not be fair to those whose circumstances justify compensation at the top of the scale. The explanation agreed between Post Office and DBT offers an alternative approach, but which we believe addresses your intention, by expressly stating that where there is an appropriate range, decision makers should always apply a generous approach to assessing within that range.
●Department for Business and Trade · Accepted · 9 Oct 2025
DBT accepts the Inquiry’s recommendation that it should publish a statement explaining the term “full and fair redress”.
Extract from: Government response to the Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry report (volume 1)
Delivery
●Cabinet Office says completed · 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.
From: Post Office (Horizon) Inquiry Recommendations Dashboard, February 2026 (data file)
Published evidence
●Business and Trade Select Committee · 6 Jan 2026
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.
Read the finding in full
Business and Trade Committee held an evidence session on 6 January 2026 with witnesses from Fujitsu, the CCRC, DBT and MoJ. The CCRC revealed Horizon software may have been installed earlier than previously believed, potentially expanding the pool of eligible convictions. Over 4,000 claimants were still awaiting final settlement across all schemes at that date. Government accepted only 3 of 17 committee recommendations in full.Business and Trade Committee evidence session, 6 January 2026View source →
How this page is built
The recommendation and the government responses are verbatim from primary documents. Delivery statements and other bodies' findings are shown in their own words, each with its source. The summary is written by this site and labelled as such. The Index does not paraphrase sources or characterise intent; it records what has been published.