Rory McIlroy case hears ‘not a shred of evidence’ of conspiracy

There is "not a shred of evidence" Rory McIlroy was involved in some conspiracy with others to plan his exit from his representation contract with his former sports management company, the High Court has been told.

Counsel for the golfer,Michael Cush SC, said such a claim by a lawyer for Horizon Sports Management and two other companies was “inherently implausible”.

Mr McIlroy, who first signed the representation agreement in December 2011, signed a third agreement with Horizon in March of 2013. That agreement was shortly afterwards repudiated by Mr McIlroy who then brought legal proceedings.

The court is hearing an application by Horizon for inspection of mobile phones and better disclosure of material allegedly held Mr McIlroy and others in advance of the full hearing.

Mr Cush said Horizon’s application to the court for the right to forensically inspect the phones held by Mr McIlroy over a three year period had effectively been dealt with during another hearing earlier this year seeking disclosure of documents.

This latest application was “dressed up” as seeking inspection of phones when it was in fact an application for further and better discovery of documents previously dealt with by Mr Justice Peter Kelly in July, counsel said.

Horizon has claimed Mr McIlroy and others close to him deliberately wiped data on their phones which could be relevant to the case.

Mr McIlroy is suing Dublin-based Horizon, along with Gurteen Ltd, with a registered address in Malta, and Canovan Management Services, also based in Dublin, claiming the representation agreement is unenforceable on grounds including alleged undue influence. He claims he was just 22 at the time with no business experience and without the benefit of legal advice.

The defendants deny the claims and have counter-claimed for some $3m (€2.4m) allegedly outstanding under the agreement for off-course revenues.

Paul Sreenan SC, for the defendants, said at the opening of the hearing that barely had the ink been dry on the March 2013 agreement but Mr McIlroy had set up his own sports management company Rory McIlroy Inc.

His personal assistant Sean O’Flaherty left Horizon to work for the new company as did Donal Casey who later became chief executive of Rory McIlroy Inc.

It was part of Horizon’s case that Mr McIlroy and a number of others were instrumental in bringing about the unlawful attempt to repudiate the contract, Mr Sreenan said.

Despite the existence of legal proceedings, Mr McIlroy, his father Gerry, Mr O’Flaherty and Mr Casey destroyed relevant data on their mobile phones by “factory resetting” them, counsel also said.

Today, on the second day of the defendants’ application to inspect those people’s phones and seek better disclosure, Mr Cush, for Mr McIlroy, said the application was “wholly misplaced” and should be refused.

Mr McIlroy had done nothing wrong and Horizon’s criticism of him was wholly misplaced.

It was criticism “made against a backdrop of an allegation of conspiracy that he planned his exit from Horizon for which there is not a shred of evidence”, counsel said. The allegation was “speculation and conjecture”.

There was a determination on the part of Horizon to mischarachterise Mr McIlroy as having not complied with a previous court order and that was wholly wrong, Mr Cush said. He had fully complied.

In reply, Maurice Collins SC, also for the defendants, said there had been significant destruction of data and this was not an inference or speculative assertion.

It was admitted by Mr McIlroy data had been destroyed, whether innocently or unknowingly, he said.

It was in everyone’s interests, including the interests of justice, that he should make the phones available for forensic examination but had refused to do so, counsel said.

The hearing continues.