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

By Claim Form dated 10 March 2023 Mr Dowding commenced proceedings against Allenby for breach of data subject rights (essentially relating to production and rectification of his personal data). The Tosca emails loom large in that claim, as do allegations of fraudulent conduct against (among others) Ms Nahal (an employee of Allenby). This appears from the following paragraphs of the Particulars of Claim:

“18.

Tosca were considering investing in Character through one of its funds managed by Matthew Siebert (“Mr Siebert”). Tosca wanted to meet the Character executive director presentation team, as recommended by the Defendant.

19.

On 2.8.17 Ms Nahal, emailed Mr Shah and the Claimant requesting “Dates for Tosca please xxx” or words to that effect (“Tosca Email 1”).

20.

Mr Shah responded to Tosca Email 1 on 2.8.17, copying in the Claimant (“Tosca Email 2”).

21.

Ms Nahal responded to Tosca Email 2, 2.8.17 copying in the Claimant (“Tosca Email 3”).

22.

Ms Nahal followed Tosca Emails 1,2 and 3, at 13. 29 on 2.8.17 with a new email chain titled: “Maybe just you and Mark” (“Tosca Email 4”).

23.

Ms Nahal sent Tosca Email 4 to Mr Shah and the Claimant.

…

43.

Mr Shah and or Character submitted into disclosure in the ET Claim, documents, in a materially adjusted form compared to the authentic original documents.

44.

Included within these false / fake documents were adjusted copies of: 2.8.17 Tosca Email 1 showing a false time of 13.05, 2.8.17 Tosca Email 2 showing a false time of 13.35 and 2.8.17 Tosca Email 3 showing a false time of 13.36 (“Fake Tosca Emails 1,2 and 3”).

45.

Fake Tosca Emails 1, 2 and 3, inaccurately do not show the Claimant’s email address as him being a recipient despite him receiving the original emails.

46.

Fake Tosca Emails 1, 2 and 3, show inaccurate time stamps of 13.05, 13.35 and 13.36.

47.

Mr Shah and or Character did not disclose any of the authentic original Tosca Emails 1,2,3,4 in the ET Claim; this was known at all material times by the Defendant.

48.

On 18 December 2018 Ms Nahal sent Mr Shah an email attaching a pdf of what she purported to be a (true) copy of 2.8.17 Tosca Email 1 showing a time of 13.05 (“Fake Allenby Tosca Email 1”).

49.

Fake Allenby Tosca Email 1 inaccurately does not show the Claimant’s email address in the sent to box despite the fact he was sent the original email Tosca Email 1.

50.

Fake Allenby Tosca Email 1 is not an accurate copy of the original email document, it is a forgery, and this was known at all material times by Ms Nahal, Allenby, Mr Shah and Character.

51.

Fake Allenby Tosca Email 1 was manufactured from the original Tosca Email 1 by Ms Nahal and or by Allenby and or by Mr Shah and or by Character.

52.

The Defendant has refused to divulge whether it was Ms Nahal and or Allenby who manufactured Fake Allenby Tosca Email 1 or whether it was manufactured by Mr Shah and or Character.

53.

The creation of Fake Allenby Tosca Email 1 constitutes an unfair and unlawful processing of the Claimant’s personal data.

54.

The sending of Fake Allenby Tosca Email 1 by Ms Nahal/Allenby to Mr Shah/Character constitutes an unfair and unlawful processing of the Claimant’s personal data.

55.

The Claimant’s email address appears on the four authentic original unaltered Tosca 2.8.17 emails 1, 2, 3 and 4, (“Original Unaltered Tosca Emails”). Those emails are about the Claimant and his email address appears on them, the information therein constitutes Personal Data of the Claimant as defined by GDPR and or DPA 2018.”

Leaving aside altogether considerations of whether and to what extent these allegations have already been considered and determined in the ET Proceedings, and, in addition, whether and to what extent a claim that is cast as relying on data subject rights constitutes an appropriate vehicle for airing wide-ranging allegations of fraudulent conduct of this kind, it is a curious feature of this claim by Mr Dowding that, if his allegations are right, he was “kept in the loop” about the meeting with Tosca to a greater extent than would be true if the Tosca emails were not, in fact, sent to him. That is curious because the thrust of this part of Mr Dowding’s employment-rights based case against TCG is that he was excluded from the meeting with Tosca, when it in fact took place on 16 August 2017, and that this exclusion was wrongful. If he was “kept in the loop” up to the time of the Tosca emails, TCG would have been asking for trouble by excluding him from the meeting, as he would have known that a meeting was planned and would (presumably) be alert if communications to him about it dried up. If, on the other hand, he was not “kept in the loop”, that supports his case that he was being shut out of the interaction with Tosca (although whether wrongfully or not remains in issue).

On 22 March 2024, Allenby applied to strike out this claim as an abuse of process. Following a hearing on 24 July 2024 at which both sides were represented by Junior Counsel, by Order dated 5 September 2024, District Judge Le Bas in the Central London County Court struck out the claim and ordered Mr Dowding to pay Allenby’s costs, summarily assessed on the indemnity basis in the sum of £60,000.

On 4 November 2024, Mr Dowding was granted permission to appeal, and the Order of the District Judge was stayed pending the appeal. TCG’s evidence before me is that Mr Dowding’s appeal was heard on 27 March 2025, and that on that occasion the Judge noted that Mr Dowding had made an application on 19 March 2025 seeking to introduce new expert evidence challenging the authenticity of a report prepared by Allenby’s IT service provider, Fitzrovia, and refused that application. It would appear that judgment on the appeal isdue to be handed down on 28 August 2025.

During the course of the hearing which resulted in the July 2024 Order, reference was made to a further data subject access request contained in a letter from Mr Dowding dated 24 April 2024. I alluded to this in [37] and [47] of my ruling granting summary judgment to the Defendants on Mr Dowding’s data subject claims:

“The matter is not made any better, from Mr Dowding’s point of view, by the consideration that the nature of the documents that he seeks - and it is mostly documents that he is pressing for - has changed over time and seems to be under a process of continuous evolution and indeed amplification. His most recent letter of 24 April 2024, I think probably, even on its face, flags up a yet further data subject access request, and has within it under the headings “Personal data contained in specific documents that are believed to exist” and “Personal data believed to be contained in the following classes of documents” a list of 48 categories of documents.

The Defendants submit that it is quite clear that the Claimant’s motivation is all to do with complaints about the dismissal process, which has already been dealt with, and a refusal to accept the findings of the Employment Tribunal. The Defendants submit - and I agree – that this is exemplified by the language of the Claimant’s letter dated 24 April 2024. For reasons that I have already indicated, it seems to me not only that this is right, but also that in all the circumstances this is not an appropriate or desirable exercise of the Claimant’s data subject access rights.”

In fact, although I have no recollection of being informed of this at that hearing, Mr Dowding had issued a Claim Form in the King’s Bench Division of the High Court on 27 June 2024, making further data subject claims against TCG. That Claim Form was served on TCG on 2 October 2024, together with an Order transferring the claim to the Central London County Court. TCG has applied to strike out this claim on the grounds (among others) that it is an abuse of process. That application is listed on 23 July 2025.

In his 3^rd Witness Statement, TCG’s solicitor, Mr Weinberg, details a number of other claims, threatened claims, and applications made by Mr Dowding, which are said to illustrate Mr Dowding’s unreasonable and “scorched earth” approach to litigation. I do not consider it necessary to refer to any of them, with the sole exception which follows.

On 1 March 2023, the Claimant commenced a High Court claim against Mr Laddie, TCG’s Leading Counsel in both the ET Proceedings and the present claim. The thrust of the complaint concerned alleged inaccurate processing of Mr Dowding’s personal data by Mr Laddie in two documents prepared during the course of the ET Proceedings: (1) Mr Laddie’s Opening Note, and (2) a letter written by Mr Laddie to Allenby relating to what was said at the time to be Mr Dowding’s withdrawal of the forgery allegation against Ms Nahal. In due course, Deputy Master Marzec granted strike out/summary judgment in Mr Laddie’s favour on the grounds (among others) of abuse of process. In paragraphs 21 and 67 of her Judgment, the Deputy Master noted that the allegations against Mr Laddie were “baseless and scurrilous”; made with “no evidential basis”; “based on nothing at all” and “ought not to have been made and would not have been made if the Claimant were professionally represented”. The Deputy Master also certified the claim in respect of the Opening Note as being Completely Without Merit.