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

Once again, in respect of the next item, item 13 in the Schedule, the Defendants’ case is based on the contention that the matters raised in paragraphs 94 and then 96 to 98, and separately 95 of the Particulars of Claim, were in front of the Tribunal and have been disposed of by the Tribunal. The relevant paragraphs for these purposes are paragraphs 28 and 141 of the judgment of the Tribunal in respect of paragraphs 94 and 96 to 98 of the Particulars of Claim, and paragraph 132 of that judgment in respect of paragraph 95 of the Particulars of Claim. It seems to me absolutely clear that the Tribunal was asked to consider these self-same matters and has dealt with them.

The nub of the complaints in paragraphs 94, 96 and 97 of the Particulars of Claim is that there was a sham comprising fabricated allegations and the PIP and a sham disciplinary process, and there was no evidence to support the allegations in question. All of those matters were dealt with by the Tribunal, and they found to the contrary. Paragraph 98 stands or falls with earlier paragraphs, as it alleges complicity by Mr Kissane in sham and unlawful conduct, which depends on the same existing.

The allegation in paragraph 95 of the Particulars of Claim is to do with the NAV/EVO project and whether the Claimant was improperly blamed for that. The Tribunal found that there was no detriment to the Claimant, that being the context in which the issue arose in respect of the NAV/EVO project, in paragraph 132 of the judgment.

So yet again, in my judgment, this is an example of Mr Dowding seeking to relitigate in this High Court claim, matters that have already been disposed of by the ruling of the Tribunal. I am reminded by Mr Laddie that permission to appeal has been given in respect of some aspects of the Tribunal's ruling on these matters. That does not mean, of course, that the appeal will succeed, and at the moment, in my judgment, that is not a relevant consideration. The relevant consideration is what is alive at the moment, when I am asked to deal with the application. If, subsequently, the appeal Tribunal reverses the Tribunal ruling one way or another, it may or may not be appropriate for Mr Dowding to seek to reinstate some of these allegations, but at the moment, in my judgment, they are the subject of conclusive rulings by the Tribunal, and it is an abuse to relitigate them in these proceedings. So these paragraphs must be struck out.