King's / Queen's Bench Division of the High Court

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

Fecha: 11-Jul-2025

Paragraphs 34-35

Paragraphs 34-35;

Paragraph 37 insofar as it claims that the Claimant’s existing contractual terms included “100% of salary bonus”;

Paragraph 51 insofar as it contends that the 8 June 2017 Draft was inaccurate where it asserted that the Claimant was entitled to three months’ notice and a

discretionary bonus at 50% of salary;

…

Paragraph 61;

Paragraphs 62-63;

Paragraph 65;

Paragraph 66;

Paragraph 67;

Paragraph 70;

Paragraph 73, limited to strike-out of the words “…retention of the…”;

Paragraph 74, limited to strike-out of the words “…then peremptorily revoked

the offer and…”;

Paragraphs 75-77;

Paragraphs 78-80;

Paragraphs 81-82;

Paragraph 84;

Paragraphs 85-87;

Paragraph 94;

Paragraph 95;

Paragraphs 96-98;

Paragraphs 99-103;

Paragraphs 104-106;

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