![KB-2023-003510 - [2025] EWHC 1755 (KB)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_AJKZXmE.png){kind=logo}
KB-2023-003510 - [2025] EWHC 1755 (KB)
Fecha: 11-Jul-2025
Paragraph 137
Paragraph 137;
jj. Paragraphs 150-154;
kk. Paragraphs 157, 158, 160, 170 and 179;
ll. Paragraphs 167, 170, 171, 214(i) and 214(ii) (insofar as they claim that the
Claimant’s 31 August 2017 bonus was greater than £55,000);
mm. Paragraphs 174-176, 214(iii) and 214(iv) insofar as they claim that the
Claimant’s notice period was greater than three months;
nn. Paragraphs 178-180;
oo. Paragraph 187, limited to strike-out of the words “…did not agree to the
Company correcting the inaccurate Public Announcements as had been sought
by the Claimant, and further, the offer…”;
pp. Paragraphs 190 and 205, limited to strike-out of the word “…False…” in each
case;
qq. Paragraphs 196-198;
rr. Paragraphs 214(viii)-(x) insofar as they refer to the torts of unlawful means
conspiracy and interference with contractual relations; and
ss. Paragraphs 214(xiii)-(xiv).
No Reasonable Cause of Action/Summary Judgment
The Claimant’s claims in the following paragraphs of the Claim Form be struck out
under CPR r. 3.4(2)(a) and/or that the Defendants be granted reverse summary
judgment in respect of such claims:
Paragraph 1;
Paragraph 2;
Paragraph 12;
Paragraph 13;
Paragraph 14; and
Paragraph 15.
The following paragraphs (or parts of paragraphs) in the Particulars of Claim be struck out under CPR pt.3.4(2)(a) and/or be the subject of reverse summary judgment:
Re Processing Personal Data in July 2017
Paragraphs 20-26 and 67-69;
Prayer, paragraphs (5) and (6) (as applicable);
Re Preparation and Circulation of the Minutes
Paragraphs 118 and 131-132 insofar as they allege a breach of the Data
Protection Act 1998;
Paragraph 120 insofar as it alleges a breach of the Data Protection Act 1998;
Paragraph 120 insofar as it alleges a fraudulent misrepresentation;
Paragraphs 120 and 137 insofar as they allege an unlawful means conspiracy;
Prayer, paragraphs (5) and (6) (as applicable);
Re the Public Announcements
Paragraphs 140-141, 181 and 214(xi) insofar as they claim breach of
confidence;
Paragraphs 140-141, 181 and 214(xi) insofar as they claim misuse of private
information;
Paragraphs 141 and 214(xi) insofar as they claim a breach of contract;
Paragraphs 142, 144, 181 and 214 (viii) and (xii) insofar as they claim a breach
of the Data Protection Act 1998;
Paragraphs 143, 144 181 and 214(xi) insofar as they claim negligent
misstatement;
Paragraph 214 (xi) insofar as it claims a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 8;
Prayer, paragraph (3);
Re Inducement/Procurement of Breach of Contract Claims as against the Second Defendant
Paragraphs 146, 158, 159, 165, 170, 171, 179, 180, 214 (introduction) and 214
(viii-x) insofar as they claim that the Second Defendant induced or procured a breach of contract;
Paragraph 136.
The following paragraphs of the Particulars of Claim be the subject of reverse summary judgment:
Re the DSAR claims
Paragraphs 188 and 193-204
Prayer, paragraph (4)
Abuse of Process/Scurrilous and/or Vexatious Material
The following paragraphs in the Particulars of Claim be struck out under CPR
pt.3.4(2)(b):
Paragraphs 43-45;
Paragraphs 46 and 48;
Paragraph 47;
Paragraph 91; and
- Heading
- Introduction
- THE PARTIES
- THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL PROCEEDINGS
- THESE PROCEEDINGS
- Paragraph 11
- Paragraphs 34-35
- Paragraph 109
- Paragraph 137
- Paragraphs 206-208.”
- ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDINGS
- OTHER PROCEEDINGS
- THE UNLESS ORDER APPLICATION The applicable legal principles
- TCG’s submissions
- Mr Dowding’s case
- TCG’s riposte
- Discussion and conclusions
- JUDGE SPEARMAN
- JUDGE SPEARMAN
- Then at paragraph 40, those grounds of appeal state
- For those reasons, I accept the Defendants’ submissions in relation to this third topic JUDGE SPEARMAN
- JUDGE SPEARMAN
- That is the Tribunal’s summary of Mr Dowding’s case in front of the Tribunal in relation to this topic
- At paragraph 132, the Tribunal move on to the second topic, the so-called NAV/EVO project
- JUDGE SPEARMAN
- JUDGE SPEARMAN
- Paragraph 75 pleads that that request for a meeting was sent by email to both Mr Shah and the Claimant. Paragraph 76 pleads that on 2 August 2017, Mr Shah responded and copied the Claimant in, and tha
- The Tribunal rejected that evidence and concluded in paragraph 26
- Just briefly to complete the narrative of how these matters have unfolded, the Claimant then made an appeal against the rulings of the Tribunal, and in support of that appeal he made an application to
- JUDGE SPEARMAN
- JUDGE SPEARMAN
- JUDGE SPEARMAN
- JUDGE SPEARMAN
- JUDGE SPEARMAN
- DAY 3 JUDGE SPEARMAN
- The announcement that was made is in these terms
- Turning to The Times publication, which the Tribunal expressly dealt with, this records (amongst other things) that
- The Tribunal judgment at paragraph 140 states “contrary to being false or misleading, it was reported that Mr Shah had provided a carefully weighted response, further that he had refused to divulge de
- For those reasons, the material paragraphs of the Particulars of Claim will be struck out JUDGE SPEARMAN
- The judge says at paragraph 122
- As I read that decision, and in accordance with my understanding of the law, it is not the case that a breach of section 172 gives rise to a right of action by a party injured by a breach of contract
- That is my ruling on the issue of the pleaded case against Mr Shah JUDGE SPEARMAN
- The list of factors set out in Ittihadieh v 5-11 Cheyne Gardens RTM Company Ltd & Ors [2017] EWCA Civ. 121 ( “Ittihadieh” ) which are to be taken into account when the Court is striking a balance betw
- First, Mr de Waal reminded me that in the Dawson-Damer v Taylor Wessing [2017] 1 WLR 3255, the Court of Appeal, in reversing the judge below, held, as summarised in the third paragraph of the headnote
- The other principle of law to which Mr de Waal helpfully took me is the often-cited summary of the principles applicable to applications for summary judgment contained in the judgment of Lewison J, as
- When he was addressing me about this personally at an earlier stage of this hearing, Mr Dowding argued that as the litigation related to him, there must be mention of his name in these documents, and
- The Defendants say in paragraph 90 of their skeleton argument that they have “three overarching submissions”. The first is that: “... there is no realistic prospect of the Court concluding that [The C
- The Defendants’ second overarching submission is that there is no realistic prospect of the court exercising its discretion to make an order pursuant to section 167 of the Data Protection Act 2018 on
- The next point is that this is really a quest for documents, and I agree with that The next point is that there is no real value to the data subject, and I agree with that
- Conclusions