Under cross-examination from Ian Gatt, representing Augustus Martin, Withington admitted at his preliminary industrial tribunal hearing that contrary to the note, he had not passed copies of his redundancy letter to "several confidential specialist advisors".
"Are you a man who habitually tells untruths?" asked Gatt. "No," replied Withington. But Withington admitted that there "may be" more untruths that would emerge as Gatt continued the cross-examination of his witness statement.
Withington also agreed with Gatt that he had not informed the directors of what he thought was the real reason for his redundancy - that he had confronted Barrow and Dix about alleged irregularities at the firm earlier in March 2000 - until a without prejudice meeting on 14 July.
"During that period I was trying to recover the situation," said Withington.
"That would have involved addressing the issue, not sweeping it under the carpet," said Gatt.
Withington said he had discussed the situation with his advisor, former ACAS conciliator Alec Saloway, and they had decided it would be sensible not to mention the alleged irregularities until a later stage. "We knew we would have to make a tribunal application at some point. Mr Saloway wanted to put in the reasons for dismissal earlier but I didn’t."
When challenged by Gatt, Withington admitted that he didn’t contact Saloway until early May 2000, so hadn’t raised the alleged irregularities with anyone from 28 March until then.
He also admitted that he had failed to disclose a note he had taken to a meeting on 14 March 2000 with Dix that documented the allegations he had made because he felt it was a "meaningless document". He also made no reference to the document in witness statements.
Withington also refuted Gatt’s suggestion that the reason he had mentioned a customer’s name on the first day of the hearing was to "give vent to the threats you had made over a considerable time to cause maximum embarrassment to Augustus Martin".
"If I had wanted to do that I would have done a lot more," he said.
"How do you surmise the press came here as did other competitors?" asked Gatt. "You will have to ask them," said Withington."
Gatt suggested Withington had contacted competitors, but this was also denied.
Withington admitted that on Friday 14 December he had written to a firm of solicitors, Simons Muirhead & Burton – which represents a witness - and said that "the proverbial would hit the fan by Monday and no doubt the trade press will make a field day of it".
But Withington said this was an attempt to get the firm to get him and Barrow together with a view to reaching a settlement because he had received a call on Wednesday 12 December informing him the press would be present.
Withington described as "rubbish" Gatt’s claim that he had conducted a campaign of threats and insinuations starting on 14 July 2000, and continuing on a number of occasions culminating on 10 October, and that he had "acted improperly in a way that the without prejudice label should be removed from the tribunal".
Withington has brought his case for unfair dismissal under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, which protects whistleblowers. Dix had claimed that Withington tried to blackmail the firm and that he, through Saloway, had demanded a £1.1m payout from them at a meeting on 10 October 2000. The allegations of irregularities were inserted into Withngton’s tribunal application after that meeting.
In his witness statement 55-year-old Withington repeated his claim that Barrow and Dix had made up a "fabricated" story.
He also repeatedly objected to the tribunal chairman that he was not being given a fair chance because he had been barred from revealing the details of his allegations of irregularities at Augustus Martin. But the chairman repeated an earlier ruling that it would be a matter for the substantive hearing, not the preliminary.
Withington said references by Dix and Barrow to a previous unfair dismissal claim he had unanimously won seemed to infer that he was a "litigious individual". But he said it was the only case he had been involved in and that both parties in that case had agreed to a breach of contract settlement prior to a High Court action.
He also refuted a claim in Dix’s statement that the working atmosphere had deteriorated by the time of a meeting on 2 August 2000, and said there was no mention in the statement of the continuing offer of an alternative position within the firm.
And he said a file note of 4 August 2000 confirmed his intention to extend his employment for three weeks while Barrow was on holiday because it would help the company.
Withington said he had also suggested he become deputy managing director. Although Dix had initially received his suggestion positively, Barrow eventually decided against it.
Withington said that at the 10 October meeting Dix’s allegation of blackmail, which was made after the £1.1m figure was included in a document, was withdrawn immediately by Barrow.
And he said that at no point in the meeting had Saloway indicated any actual settlement figure.
"The owners never made any real effort at all," he said, "and seemed only interested in what I could provide regarding my allegations."
The preliminary hearing was adjourned at the end of its fifth day until 9 January 2002 at the request of Withington. He applied for the adjournment late in the day after Gatt proposed to ask him questions about a meeting convened at Withington’s request early on the fourth day.
Withington had requested the meeting, which was attended by him, his wife and Gatt’s instructing solicitor Nicola Jenvey, to try to settle the case before matters came out that he thought would harm both parties. It was agreed at the time it would be without prejudice.
But Gatt said that the meeting could be more serious than the one of 10 October 2000.
The tribunal chairman rejected Withington’s objection that he was "absolutely appalled" that he could now be questioned over the meeting, which he said he had asked for "under the auspices of resolving the issue".
But the chairman did grant the adjournment after Withington said he wanted to take legal advice and that he didn’t want to subject his wife to any more stress.
The case continues.
Related articles
20 December 2001 Blackmail accusation at Augustus Martin hearing
20 December 2001 Barrow takes stand at Augustus Martin hearing
21 December 2001 Withington admits to untruth at Augustus Martin hearing
09 January 2002 Augustus Martin preliminary hearing ends abruptly
15 November 2002 Augustus Martin ends row with ex MD
