A businesswoman has claimed before the Supreme Court that her former co-workers invaded her privacy by illegally accessing her phone records and LinkedIn social media account.
Eshel Channy is seeking various injunctions, including a request for damages, over the alleged unauthorized use of her personal data, against Martin and Janet Wasilucha on dates between 2016 and 2017. The claims have been denied.
The court heard that the three parties were directors and shareholders of an international logistics company called Expert Air.
Unhappy disagreements arose in 2017, which eventually led to Ms Chaney resigning from her position and striking an agreement to sell her stake to the defendants for €326,000.
Ms Chaney of Fitzherbert, Navan, Ko Myth Court alleges that the defendants in Oriel Road, Kowloon, Ko Louth refused to pay around €100,000 of the agreed amount.
They alleged that Ms Chaney had breached the settlement by failing to abide by the no-seek clause in the agreement that led to her exit from Expert Air.
The failure to pay that money went to an independent judge who ordered Ms Chaney to pay the amount owed of €100,000.
Based on what was brought up before the hearing, Ms Chaney said the defendants had illegally gained access to her phone records by looking at her Vodafone account.
Ms. Chaney filed a complaint with the Data Protection Commission (DPC) about access to her phone records. DPC upheld her complaint.
She also discovered that the defendants had illegally accessed her LinkedIn account, which she alleged happened to disable her in a new role she had taken on.
She also claims that the defendants’ actions amounted to a serious breach of her privacy.
The defendants deny all claims against them, or that Ms. Chaney deserves any damages. They argue that a settlement agreement in 2017 resolved all known and unknown claims between them.
In a counterclaim, the defendants claim that the suit against them is a malicious abuse of the court process, and that it has no reason to sue them. They are seeking damages against Ms. Chaney.
Ms. Chaney opposes the counterclaim.
A preliminary application in the dispute was brought before Judge Sinan Allen who was told that the defendants sought preliminary cases of law, arising from the case being heard separately from and before any full hearing of the case.
It was argued that such a hearing could result in the case being resolved before the matter reached a full hearing and would reduce the estimated three days required to hear the dispute in full.
Ms. Chaney’s lawyers disputed the request.
In his ruling, Mr. Allen rejected the defendants’ request, on the grounds that he did not believe that handling the initial cases in a separate hearing would ultimately save court time and legal costs for the procedure.
The dispute will return to the courts at a later time.
« Spécialiste de la télévision sans vergogne. Pionnier des zombies inconditionnels. Résolveur de problèmes d’une humilité exaspérante. »