KB-2023-003510 - [2025] EWHC 1755 (KB)

I now have to rule on items 10 and 21 in the Schedule, which have been taken together because they relate to one another. They are summarised in the Schedule as follows: “Mr Shah excluded the Claimant from a meeting with Allenby and Tosca taking place in August 2017” and “[The Defendant company], Mr Shah, Duane Morris (who are a firm of solicitors) introduced “doctored evidence” into the ET proceedings, including an allegedly doctored version of an email dated 2 August 2017”. Item 10 relates to paragraphs 75-77 and 81-82 of the Particulars of Claim, and item 21 relates to paragraphs 196-198 and 214(xiii)-(xiv) of the Particulars of Claim.

As will be seen in a moment, the relevance of the 2 August 2017 email (also referred to as “the Tosca email”) to the factual issue that was germane to the Employment Tribunal proceedings related to the extent to which Mr Dowding had been excluded from what ultimately became a meeting later in August. That was the factual issue.

But the issue which assumed greater significance was not what part the 2 August 2017 email played in the factual jigsaw relating to that allegedly detrimental conduct towards Mr Dowding, but the question of whether there had been a deliberate forgery or fabrication of evidence. This became relevant to the question of credibility, and particularly, had the allegation been made out, to the overall reliability of the employer company’s evidence in the Employment Tribunal proceedings.

Before one gets drawn into the detail, it is vital to bear in mind that the Defendants’ basis for seeking to strike-out the material paragraphs in the Particulars of Claim that I am about to address, as a starting point, is confined to the simple proposition that the issues raised by those paragraphs were raised in front of the Employment Tribunal and have been ruled upon by the Tribunal, and that it is accordingly wrong to seek to revisit those matters again in these High Court proceedings. That is the fundamental, principled basis upon which the application for strike-out is founded.

But, because of the complexity of allegations relating to the alleged doctoring of this document, the paper trail extends a lot further than that. The Defendants’ fundamental submission here is that when one examines the history of how Mr Dowding’s case relating to the alleged doctoring or forgery has unfolded, it is thoroughly unsatisfactory from beginning to end. It is made without any proper basis at all. It has been pursued in the face of clear and incontrovertible evidence to the contrary. Mr Dowding’s own position, for example in terms of what he has sought to appeal from the Employment Tribunal’s ruling, and whether he has abandoned issues, has vacillated; and at times he has said that he is not accusing anyone of forgery, while at other times he has said, as he did to me just a moment ago, in concluding his further response submissions, that he has been the victim of fraud (i.e. fraud in the fabrication of this document).

What the Defendants invite me to do, although hopefully not falling into the trap of attempting to try any issues, is to look at the paper history of this matter, and condemn the approach that Mr Dowding is adopting in the strongest possible terms.

Mr Dowding, for his part, effectively, and certainly towards the end of his submissions both yesterday and today, is throwing himself on the mercy of the Court and begging the Court not to strike out these paragraphs, on the grounds that although on one view the issues, as he himself said a moment ago, are peripheral, nevertheless he considers that they are very important to him, and perhaps the financial consequences of these allegations being struck out would be serious. So that is why this issue has taken as much time as it has to deal with. By this issue, I mean items 10 and 21 together.

So the logical starting point is to look at the pleaded case that I am invited to strike out. It starts at paragraph 75 of the Particulars of Claim and it refers to Ms Amrit Nahal, who was a director at Allenby which was a broker, emailing Mr Shah and, according to the Claimant’s case, the Claimant as well, requesting dates for a meeting. This was all to do with a possible investment by an institutional investor known for short as Tosca.