High Court orders Mediahuis and Leslie Buckley to furnish lists of confidential documents related to INM19 investigation

The High Court has ordered newspaper publisher Mediahuis Ireland, formerly known as Independent News & Media (INM), and the former INM chairman Leslie Buckley to furnish lists and descriptions of documents, such as confidential transcripts, that they may have received from court-appointed inspectors investigating the company’s affairs.

The documents are being sought by Karl Brophy and Gavin O’Reilly, two former INM executives who are suing the company and Mr Buckley over an illegal 2014 data hack that exposed their private information, which was subsequently “interrogated” in a covert operation overseen by Mr Buckley.

Mediahuis, which bought the company after the so-called INM19 data breach, argued that it should be allowed to keep the documents totally secret from the discovery process under a form of public interest privilege, so as to respect the confidentiality of the High Court inspection process.

Mr Brophy and Mr O’Reilly asserted that they need to see the documents to prove their claims against the company and Mr Buckley over the “clandestine exercise”.

Consumer sentiment slips for fourth month in row

---

Helping offshore energy developers factor the impact on nature into their planning process

---

To make artificial intelligence safer, use it more

---

The race for an AI-powered personal assistant

---

In a judgment delivered on Friday, Mr Justice Garrett Simons said the court would rule later on which documents are privileged. In the meantime, he said a list and description must be filed of all of the relevant documents received from the inspectors, which Mr Brophy and Mr O’Reilly want.

Post office quarrels / Drug dealing impacts city centre businesses

Listen | 42:52

CEO of An Post David McRedmond joins Ciaran Hancock to discuss the ongoing row between An Post and the UK’s Post Office over the implementation of post-Brexit customs rules, which is resulting in thousands of online purchases being returned to British retailers. Later on, we hear from two Dublin city centre business owners, Stephen Kennedy of Copper+Straw cafe and Sean Crescenzi of Happy Endings restaurant. They speak about the impact that anti-social behaviour and drug dealing, in and around Aston Quay, is having on their businesses and the immediate and long-term solutions they would like to see implemented to address the issue.

He suggested the descriptions of the documents could be tweaked if required to maintain confidentiality for now, such as in the case of the transcripts of named people who may have given evidence to the inspectors in confidence.

In a separate issue also ruled upon by the judge, he refused a request by Mr Buckley to impose a 2016 or 2017 cut-off date on documents that he must submit as part of the discovery process. Instead, he must make discovery on all documents up to the date on which Mr Brophy and Mr O’Reilly first threatened to sue him, in March 2020.

This potentially brings into the discovery net documents relating to certain exchanges Mr Buckley may have had with the State’s corporate watchdog, Ian Drennan. He launched an investigation into a slew of allegations of corporate misbehaviour at INM under Mr Buckley’s chairmanship, including the illegal data breach. Mr Drennan paused his investigation in early 2018, when he applied to the High Court for inspectors to be appointed to the company.

Mr Justice Simons said there was “no cogent evidence” before him for the 2016 or 2017 cut-off dates suggested by Mr Buckley, and which would have put certain communications with Mr Drennan’s office outside the scope of discovery.

The case taken by Mr Brophy and Mr O’Reilly is just one of a litany of actions filed against Mediahuis/INM and Mr Buckley over the secret data hack, which the Data Protection Commission has already found was illegal. The data operation was paid for by a company owned by Denis O’Brien, who was in 2014 INM’s major shareholder.

Mr Buckley, a close associate of Mr O’Brien’s, was his representative on the board at the time of the INM19 data breach. In previous judgments relating to the appointment of the inspectors, the High Court noted that INM’s solicitors said that the cohort of at least 19 people whose data was secretly breached “may be regarded as having acted adversely to Mr O’Brien”.

Mediahuis has in recent months settled many of the other INM19 claims taken against it. The High Court inspection into the company’s affairs is ongoing.