Deel admits it instructed 'discreet' surveillance on spy case man

BreakingNews.ie

3 days ago

One of the companies in the international HR firms' "spy" dispute instructed that "discreet" surveillance be carried out on the Irish payroll compliance manager at the centre of High Court proceedings over the affair, a High Court judge has been told.
US headquartered Deel Inc, which allegedly recruited Dublin man Keith O'Brien to pass on trade secrets to it from his employer Rippling, also headquartered in the US, did not instruct that there be covert or intimidatory surveillance on Mr O'Brien, Mr Justice Brian Cregan was told.
Advertisement
Last Friday, Mr O'Brien, of Balrothery in north Dublin, was granted a one side only represented injunction preventing "persons unknown", who were seen driving two different cars in the vicinity of Mr O'Brien's home and workplace, from harassing or intimidating him by following, photographing and recording him or members of his family.
They were also restrained from attending within one kilometre of those places.
The case was against persons unknown because his lawyers did not, at that stage, know the identities of the owners/drivers of the vehicles.
The court was also told by Imogen McGrath SC, for Mr O'Brien, that it was believed the people involved were working for Deel and the conduct was designed to intimidate him because he had agreed to cooperate with Rippling in a separate case it is bringing over the spy affair against Deel and Mr O'Brien.
Advertisement
The court heard however that, in response to requests to desist, Deel's solicitors Hayes LLP had written to say their client had "no knowledge" of surveillance by any persons in the vehicles identified.
On Wednesday, when the case returned to the High Court, Ms McGrath said there had been dramatic developments over the previous 24 hours.
The identities associated with the two cars had been provided and the owner/driver of one car allegedly seen in one incident, a couple who attended court, were not involved in any surveillance and the case against them was being discontinued, counsel said.
The driver of the second vehicle, which was involved in five other alleged incidents of following and surveilling, had also come forward.
Advertisement
John O'Regan BL, for the second driver, asked the judge that his client's name be anonymised until he is able to make a formal application in this respect.
Counsel said the application will be in accordance with case precedent or statute law because his client has significant health issues and operates "in the sphere of surveillance", and revealing his identity could put his safety at risk and damage his business.
Counsel also asked the case be put back as his client, while refuting Mr O'Brien's claims, wanted to come to a practical agreement in relation to the court orders.
Mr Justice Cregan said he was prepared to hear the application for anonymisation of the defendant but was reluctant to make an order in relation to that at this stage.
Advertisement
The court heard that while Deel was not a defendant in Mr O'Brien's action, which includes a claim for damages, the judge had directed that their lawyers attend court on Wednesday to say why they should or should not be a party.
Paul Gardiner SC, for Deel, told the judge his client had instructed that "discreet surveillance" be carried out on Mr O'Brien, but there was no question that it should be covert and used to intimidate or harass him.
"My client (Deel) engaged with Person B (to carry out surveillance) and unknown to us, they engaged Person A and Deel was not involved in instructing anyone to carry out intimidation, and we refute that", he said.
The judge said given Deel's solicitors' response to requests to desist from Mr O'Brien's lawyers of having "no knowledge" of those involved in following him, it "could be interpreted as being economical with the verité (truth)".
Advertisement
Mr Gardiner replied his side only ascertained the actual position over the weekend. He also said his client was agreeable to not surveilling Mr O'Brien any further, and if he wished that Deel should be a defendant, he should serve papers to that effect.
Ms McGrath, for Mr O'Brien, said they would have to consider that as they would need to see what instructions, including text messages, Deel gave to Person B to carry out the surveillance.
The judge continued the injunctions and adjourned the matter for a week.