A businesswoman has claimed before the High Court that her former work colleagues allegedly breached her privacy by illegally accessing her phone records and LinkedIn social media account.
The claim was brought by Michelle Chaney seeking various orders, including one for damages for the alleged unauthorized use of her personal data, against Martin and Jeanette Wasylocha on dates between 2016 and 2017.
Applications are rejected.
Logistics company
The court heard that the three parties were all directors and shareholders of an international logistics company called Expert Air.
Unfortunate disputes arose in 2017, which ultimately led Ms Chaney to resign as a director and strike a deal to sell her stake to the defendants for €326,000.
Ms Chaney of Fitzherbert Court, Navan, Co Meath claims defendants in Oriel Road, Collon, Co Louth refused to pay her €100,000 of the agreed sum.
It was alleged by them that Ms Chaney breached regulations by failing to abide by a non-solicitation of business clause in the agreement which saw her leave Expert Air.
The non-payment of that money was referred to an independent arbitrator, who ordered that Ms Chaney be awarded the remaining €100,000.
Arbitration hearing
Following what was presented at the arbitration hearing, Ms Chaney claims the defendants illegally accessed her phone records by viewing her Vodafone account.
Ms Chaney has lodged a complaint with the Data Protection Commission over access to her phone records. The DPC upheld his complaint.
She also discovered that the defendants allegedly illegally accessed her private LinkedIn account, which she said was done to disrupt her in a new role she had taken on.
She claims the defendants’ action amounts to a breach of data protection laws and a gross violation of her privacy.
The defendants deny all claims against them, or that Ms. Chaney is entitled to damages. They contend that the 2017 settlement agreement resolved all known and unknown claims between them.
Counterclaim
In a counterclaim, the defendants claim the action against them is a malicious abuse of legal process, that it has no cause of action against them, and they seek damages against Ms Chaney.
Ms. Chaney opposes the counterclaim.
A preliminary application in the dispute has been made to Judge Senan Allen.
Counsel for the defendant sought to have preliminary legal issues arising in the action be heard separately and before any full hearing of the action.
Such a hearing, it was argued, could result in the action being resolved before the case goes to a full hearing and would reduce the estimated three days needed to hear the entire dispute.
The claim was disputed by Ms Chaney’s lawyers.
In his decision, Judge Allen dismissed the defendants’ request, on the grounds, among other things, that he did not believe that dealing with the preliminary issues in a separate hearing would ultimately save time in court. and legal costs related to the action.
The dispute will return to court at a later date.
