A businesswoman has claimed earlier than the Excessive Courtroom that her former work colleagues breached her privateness by allegedly unlawfully accessing her cellphone information and her LinkedIn social media account.
Michelle Chaney is in search of numerous orders, together with for damages, over alleged unauthorised use of her private knowledge on dates between 2016 and 2017.
The orders are sought in opposition to Martin and Jeanette Wasylocha who deny the claims and have counter-claimed.
All three events had been administrators and shareholders of a world logistics firm known as Skilled Air.
The court docket heard sad variations arose in 2017, which in the end resulted in Ms Chaney resigning her directorship and getting into into an settlement to promote her shareholding to the defendants for €326,000.
Ms Chaney of Fitzherbert Courtroom, Navan, Co Meath claims the defendants, of Oriel Street, Collon, Co Louth refused to pay her some €100,000 of the agreed sum.
They alleged Ms Chaney had breached the settlement by not abiding with a non-solicitation of enterprise clause within the settlement that noticed her exit Skilled Air.
The non-payment of that cash went earlier than an impartial adjudicator, who ordered that Ms Chaney be paid the excellent €100,000.
Arising out of what was put earlier than the adjudication listening to, Ms Chaney claims the defendants unlawfully accessed her cellphone information by way of viewing her Vodafone account.
She made a grievance to the Information Safety Fee about her cellphone information being accessed. The DPC upheld her grievance.
She claims she additionally found the defendants unlawfully accessed her non-public LinkedIn account, allegedly to disrupt her in a brand new position she had taken up.
She claims the defendants’ motion quantity to a breach of information safety legal guidelines and to a gross invasion of her privateness.
The defendants deny all of the claims in opposition to them, or that Ms Chaney is entitled to any damages. They argue that the settlement settlement in 2017 resolved all recognized and unknown claims between them.
In a counterclaim, the defendants declare the motion is a malicious abuse of court docket course of and that Ms Chaney has no reason for motion in opposition to them.
They’re additionally in search of damages in opposition to Ms Chaney.
Ms Chaney opposes the counterclaim.
A preliminary software within the dispute got here earlier than Mr Justice Senan Allen.
Attorneys for the defendant sought to have preliminary problems with regulation, arising out of the motion, heard upfront of any full listening to of the motion.
The applying was opposed by Ms Chaney’s attorneys.
Mr Justice Allen dismissed the defendants’ software on grounds together with he didn’t imagine having the preliminary points handled in a separate listening to would in the end save on court docket time and prices of the motion. The dispute will return earlier than the courts at a later date.
