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

Mr Dowding commenced proceedings against TCG in the Employment Tribunal (“the ET Proceedings”) claiming, in substance: (i) that he had not been provided with written particulars of his contractual terms and conditions, (ii) that he was a “whistleblower” and had been subjected to various acts of victimisation on the ground that he was a whistleblower and suffered detriment, and (iii) that he was unfairly dismissed, either because he was a whistleblower or on the basis that he was the victim of an “ordinary” unfair dismissal. The ET Proceedings were tried in September 2020. By a judgment dated 2 November 2020, all of Mr Dowding’s claims were dismissed.

Further, following a hearing on 4 and 5 November 2021, by a judgment dated 18 January 2022 Mr Dowding was ordered by the Employment Tribunal (“ET”) to pay 21% of TCG’s overall costs (of £600,000) capped at £127,563.70 subject to detailed assessment, plus £20,000 in respect of TCG’s costs of the costs hearing itself.

On 24 December 2020 and 22 March 2022 respectively, Mr Dowding appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (“EAT”) against the substantive and costs decisions of the ET. On 7 February 2023, HHJ Auerbach granted permission to appeal against both decisions on limited grounds. Mr Dowding renewed his permission application to the Court of Appeal in respect of all liability and costs grounds on which the EAT had not granted permission. Permission to appeal was refused by Falk LJ on 7 September 2023.

The limited matters on which the EAT granted permission to appeal on the papers were the subject of an appeal hearing on 30 and 31 July 2024 before HHJ Auerbach. By an Order and judgment dated 24 September 2024, the EAT dismissed both appeals, save that the ET’s decisions (i) to award TCG its costs on the indemnity basis and (ii) to award TCG £20,000 in respect of its application for costs were remitted back to the ET for fresh consideration. Those two issues were listed for a hearing before the ET on 27 January 2025, and by a judgment dated 7 February 2025 the ET reached the same decisions on them as it had originally reached. Mr Dowding asked the ET to reconsider that judgment and, when that request was refused, again appealed to the EAT. It seems that (i) this appeal is ongoing, (ii) the EAT has already dismissed it other than in respect of two grounds, and (ii) these two grounds have been stayed pending consideration by the EAT of further information and comments received from the ET Judge.