A former senior executive from Peppa Pig toys faces the possibility of losing his house following his dismissal for threatening his manager with a pen and spending almost £300,000 on unsuccessful legal battles.
Mark Dowding, the chief financial officer and company secretary of Character Group PLC, known for producing Peppa Pig soft toys, was dismissed from his £160k annual position in September 2017.
The leadership group reportedly lost faith in Mr. Dowding following his appearance in an employment tribunal, where he was alleged to have "waved" a pen at his superior in a "threatening" way during a "passionate" discussion in August 2017.
Mr. Dowding later stated that he was unjustly let go due to false accusations, asserting that he 'had faced several instances of retaliation'.
But even though he lost his case in 2020, tThe financial officer continued to struggle, involving five years of appeals and disputes, as well as initiating a High Court case - resulting in significant legal expenses.
Mr. Dowding still has one outstanding legal claim regarding his treatment by the company, but he has been informed that it will be dismissed unless he pays the £288,000 he owes from earlier disputes.
Placing the order, High Court judge Richard Spearman KC stated that Mr. Dowding now risks losing the pension fund, which is his sole source of regular income, "and possibly also his home, to cover those costs orders."
In his decision, he stated: 'Sophocles wrote...'It is a painful experience to witness your own hardship and realize that you alone, and no one else, have caused it'. In my opinion, this is the situation in which the claimant, Mr. Dowding, currently resides.
Hired by The Character Group from August 2012 until September 2017, at the moment Mr Dowding was let go, he was serving as group finance director with a base salary of £110,000 along with an extra 50 per cent bonus.
Describing the pen incident that took place during a work-related meeting between Mr. Dowding and his superior, Mr. Shah, Judge Khalil stated: "Their conversation turned intense and voices were elevated. The claimant admitted under oath that he spoke loudly first."
Mr. Shah further claimed that the claimant directed a pen at him, prompting Mr. Shah to step back. This was mentioned in his email, sent on the same day as the incident.
In that email, Mr Shah commented on the incident, 'Your conduct was inappropriate and unprofessional. You spoke to me in a threatening way and pointed a pen at my face while moving your chair forward toward me. I had to move my chair back to avoid any harm to my face.'
Although Mr Dowding asserted that the pen threat was made up, Judge Khalil stated: 'The tribunal finds that the incident described by Mr Shah did take place, which involved the claimant pointing at him and waving a pen in a threatening way.'
He concluded that this dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses, both in terms of procedure and substance.
A ruling was issued last December to ensure the current court charges related to Mr. Dowding's £850,000 residence on Rotherhithe Street in south London.
The matter was brought before Judge Spearman regarding Mr. Dowding's request to explain the details of his claim, while TCG Toys sought an order to dismiss his case entirely if he fails to settle the debt he already owes.
In a ruling issued this week, the judge issued directives to terminate various aspects of Mr. Dowding's case, including his attempt to sue his former employer individually as a defendant in addition to the company.
Even though the rest of the case can proceed, the judge issued an order that it be dismissed unless he settles the £288,000 he still owes.
Clarifying that Mr. Dowding "now risks losing" both his individual pension fund and his residence, Judge Spearman characterized Mr. Dowding as being "in a highly distressing situation."
He stated: "Given the information he has revealed, he cannot afford to cover these financial obligations: either his house could be seized or his pension could be taken - potentially, if circumstances continue as they have, both."
That stems from initiating and continuing costly legal action that has proven ineffective, leading to the cost orders.
If Mr. Dowding settles his debt, the remaining case will be brought back to court at a future time.
Read more