A High Court judge has said he wants an explanation over a letter from the solicitors for human resources (HR) firm Deel Inc saying their client had “no knowledge” of the following by private investigators of a payroll manager at the centre of a rival business’ “spy” affair.
Mr Justice Brian Cregan said he was not going to join Deel as either a defendant or notice party in proceedings being brought by Keith O’Brien, the man who was allegedly paid €5,500 a month to pass on trade secrets of his former employer, HR software firm Rippling, to rival Deel.
Rippling is now suing Deel and others, including Mr O’Brien, over the matter.
The judge said he would not join Deel in Mr O’Brien’s separate case alleging harassment and surveillance because doing so, of the court’s own motion, was an exceptional jurisdiction. It was also unfair to the O’Brien side who did not want Deel added anyway, and because of the separate Rippling case against Deel.
READ MORE
Mr O’Brien’s case is against two private investigators which he claims have been involved in harassment of him and his family, including one who allegedly followed him by car to various locations and photographed his children playing in their garden.
The investigators, Mark Murran, also known as Rock Investigations, and Cliona Woods of Gotham Services, strongly deny any overt surveillance or claims of harassment and intimidation.
That case was back before Mr Justice Cregan on Friday when the judge ruled out joining Deel but said his main outstanding concern was a pre-litigation letter written by Deel’s solicitors Hayes LLP in reply to a call from Mr O’Brien’s solicitor to desist from the alleged surveillance/harassment.
In that letter, Hayes stated their client had no knowledge of the cars allegedly following Mr O’Brien.
On Tuesday, the judge described the Hayes letter as either a “blatant lie or a misrepresentation” because it was later admitted as being incorrect because Deel said it had organised “discreet” but not overt surveillance on Mr O’Brien.
On Friday, he said: “The question from my point of view is that this is a letter from reputable solicitors who are officers of the court and it is blatantly wrong”.
He said Deel’s barrister, Paul Gardiner SC, instructed by Hayes, indicated he (judge) should not have said it was a lie or misrepresentation but it seemed to the judge that it is still an issue for the court and should be properly addressed.
He said because of that letter, earlier this week in another case in which Hayes were representatives, he had a question as to whether he could rely on it although he did do so in that case.
He believed the next step was for Hayes to swear an affidavit as to how that replying letter to the O’Brien side was written.
Mr Gardiner said the letter was true at the time and while it turned out to be incorrect because discreet surveillance was commissioned by Deel, when written it was believed to be correct.
He felt what the court might be doing is “putting a wedge” between Deel and its representation.
Mr Gardiner also believed the judge was being unfair to both Hayes and Deel in circumstances where fair procedures and due process have yet to take place and where the judge’s words were being widely reported.
If the court is to have a separate inquiry into this letter, it should at least not take place until the O’Brien harassment proceedings have concluded which may well find there was no harassment, he said.
Mr Justice Cregan said he would give two weeks for Mr Gardiner to take instructions and consider the matter more fully and he said his concerns may be assuaged if it is explained in an affidavit.
The judge also granted consent orders, sought by Mr Murran and Ms Woods, that Mr O’Brien preserve any information, including on CCTV, dashcam and phone, relating to the allegations against them.
He also continued the injunctions restraining further surveillance.
