A businesswoman has claimed before the High Court that her former work colleagues breached her privacy by allegedly unlawfully accessing her phone records and her LinkedIn social media account.
Michelle Chaney is seeking various orders, including for damages, over alleged unauthorised use of her personal data on dates between 2016 and 2017.
The orders are sought against Martin and Jeanette Wasylocha who deny the claims and have counter-claimed.
All three parties were directors and shareholders of an international logistics company called Expert Air. The court heard unhappy differences arose in 2017, which ultimately resulted in Ms Chaney resigning her directorship and entering an agreement to sell her shareholding to the defendants for €326,000.
Ms Chaney of Fitzherbert Court, Navan, Co Meath claims the defendants, of Oriel Road, Collon, Co Louth refused to pay her some €100,000 of the agreed sum.
They allege Ms Chaney breached the settlement by not abiding with a non-solicitation of business clause in the agreement that saw her exit Expert Air.
The non-payment of that money went before an independent adjudicator, who ordered that Ms Chaney be paid the outstanding €100,000.
Arising out of what was put before the adjudication hearing, Ms Chaney claims the defendants unlawfully accessed her phone records through viewing her Vodafone account. She made a complaint to the Data Protection Commission about her phone records being accessed. The DPC upheld her complaint.
She claims she also discovered the defendants unlawfully accessed her private LinkedIn account, allegedly to disrupt her in a new role she had taken up. She claims the defendants' actions amount to a breach of data protection laws and to a gross invasion of her privacy.
The defendants deny all the claims against them, or that Ms Chaney is entitled to any damages. They argue that the settlement agreement in 2017 resolved all known and unknown claims between them.
In a counterclaim, the defendants claim the action is a malicious abuse of court process and that Ms Chaney has no cause of action against them. They are also seeking damages against Ms Chaney.
Ms Chaney opposes the counterclaim.
A preliminary application in the dispute came before Mr Justice Senan Allen on Friday. Lawyers for the defendant sought to have preliminary issues of law, arising out of the action, heard in advance of any full hearing of the action. The application was opposed by Ms Chaney’s lawyers.
Mr Justice Allen dismissed the defendants’ application on grounds including he did not believe having the preliminary issues dealt with in a separate hearing would ultimately save on court time and costs of the action. The dispute will return before the courts at a later date.
