Grant Thornton seeks order over confidential information

Accountancy firm Grant Thornton has brought a High Court action aimed at preventing a woman releasing confidential information about unidentified parties which it mistakenly sent to her on a computer disc.

A partner in Grant Thornton was appointed receiver over some assets of Gerardine Scanlan in 2013, the firm said. It claims she told it that data sent to her last September includes deeds of appointment of receivers on properties of other borrowers not connected to her.

Ms Scanlan, Bruhenny, Churchtown, Mallow, Co Cork, had made clear she had been “interrogating” the information, the firm claims.

It was concerned she had disclosed some of it to at least one other unconnected third party and discussed aspects of it with at least one affected borrower.

Grant Thornton, City Quay, Dublin 2, claims it had to bring legal proceedings because Ms Scanlan repeatedly refused to confirm she would return the information, delete or destroy any copies held by her and would not provide it to anyone else.

Interim orders

The firm had obtained interim orders ex parte (one side only represented) including restraining Ms Scanlan disseminating the material.  When the matter returned to court on Tuesday, she denied disseminating the material. Asked would she hand it back, she said her private information was on the disc.

Mr Justice Paul Gilligan returned to Friday the firm’s application to continue the orders.

In an affidavit, Aidan Connaughton, Head of Risk with the firm, said Ms Scanlan sought information from Grant Thornton after Stephen Tennant, a partner in the firm, was appointed receiver over some of her assets in August 2013.

In response to her data access request of January 2015, and after the office of the Data Protection Commissioner (ODPC) warned on September 11th 2015 an enforcement order was being considered over Grant Thornton’s delay responding, she was sent material that same day on an urgent basis.Â

That material, by mistake, included information relating to others, plus confidential proprietary information belonging to the firm, including legally privileged material, Mr Connaughton said.

Other properties

In a letter received on October 7th, Ms Scanlan wrote she was concerned to find items of information, including deeds of appointment of receivers over other properties unconnected to her, among the documents provided to her, he said. She said she was unsure what to do with such documents and wanted advice from the firm, he said.

Grant Thornton was unaware of the data breach until that letter and, while it was considering the matter, Ms Scanlan emailed it on October 13th attaching deeds of appointment of receivers relating to two different borrowers, he said. That email was copied to persons involved in her separate legal proceedings against Mr Tennant, as receiver appointed over her assets, and others, he added.

On October 14th, the firm emailed a letter to Ms Scanlan stating the data breach would be addressed in line with data protection laws and seeking return of the information and that no copies were retained.

The firm was then unaware what data had been breached other than the information Ms Scanlan sent it, Mr Connaughton said.

Ms Scanlan replied she was still reviewing the data and it would be helpful if the firm would provide the addresses of the data subjects as she would feel more comfortable sending the data to them herself, he said. The firm replied that would not be appropriate and sought return of the data.

Correspondence

Mr Connaughton said there was further correspondence with Ms Scanlan as well as correspondence, and meetings, with a man who contacted the firm on November 3rd saying Ms Scanlan provided him with information so as to help her understand it. The man had since provided undertakings sought by the firm.

Mr Connaughton said a borrower told the firm on November 16th Ms Scanlan had contacted him about his deed of appointment of receiver. A suggestion in a November 27th letter from Ms Scanlan that the confidential information evidences or suggests any fraud or wrongdoing by Grant Thornton is “absolutely unjustified and wrong”, he added.