A businesswoman has claimed before the High Court that her former work colleagues breached her privacy by illegally accessing her phone records and LinkedIn social media account.
Michelle Chaney is seeking various orders, including for damages, for alleged unauthorized use of her personal data on dates between 2016 and 2017.
The orders are sought against Martin and Jeanette Wasylocha who deny the allegations and have filed a counterclaim.
The three parties were directors and shareholders of an international logistics company called Expert Air. The court heard unfortunate disputes that arose in 2017, which ultimately led to Ms Chaney stepping down as a director and striking a deal to sell her stake to the defendants for €326,000.
Ms Chaney of Fitzherbert Court, Navan, Co Meath claims that the defendants, of Oriel Road, Collon, Co Louth refused to pay her around €100,000 of the agreed sum.
They allege 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.
Following what was presented at the arbitration hearing, Ms Chaney claims the defendants illegally accessed her phone records by viewing her Vodafone account. She filed a complaint with the Data Protection Commission over access to her phone records. The DPC upheld his complaint.
She claims she also discovered that the defendants had illegally accessed her private LinkedIn account, allegedly to disrupt her in a new role she had taken on. She claims the defendants’ actions are a breach of data protection laws and a gross invasion 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.
In a counterclaim, the defendants claim the action is a malicious abuse of legal process and that Ms. Chaney has no cause of action against them. They are also seeking damages against Ms Chaney.
Ms. Chaney opposes the counterclaim.
A preliminary application in the dispute was presented to Judge Senan Allen on Friday. Defendant’s attorneys requested that preliminary legal issues arising from the action be heard before any full hearing of the action. The claim was disputed by Ms Chaney’s lawyers.
Judge Allen dismissed the defendants’ request on the grounds that he did not believe that dealing with the preliminary issues in a separate hearing would ultimately save court time and trial costs. action. The dispute will return to court at a later date.
