[ad_1]
A businesswoman claimed in the High Court that her former co-workers violated her privacy by allegedly illegally accessing her phone records and social media account LinkedIn.
Michelle Chaney is seeking various orders, including damages, for alleged unauthorized use of her personal data on dates between 2016 and 2017.
Orders are sought against Martin and Jeanette Wasylocha who deny the claims and have cross-requested.
The three parties were directors and shareholders of an international logistics company called Expert Air. The court heard that disgruntled disputes arose in 2017, which ultimately led Ms Chaney to resign as a director and strike a deal to sell her stake to the defendants for ⬠326,000.
Ms Chaney of Fitzherbert Court, Navan, Co Meath claims that the defendants, Oriel Road, Collon, Co Louth have refused to pay her approximately ⬠100,000 of the agreed sum.
They allege Ms Chaney violated the regulations by failing to abide by a business non-solicitation clause in the agreement that saw her leave Expert Air.
The non-payment of this money went to an independent arbitrator, who ordered that Ms. Chaney be paid the remaining ⬠100,000.
Arising from what was presented prior to the arbitration hearing, Ms Chaney claims that the defendants illegally accessed her phone records while viewing her Vodafone account. She lodged a complaint with the Data Protection Commission regarding access to her telephone records. The DPC upheld his complaint.
She claims to have also discovered that the defendants illegally accessed her private LinkedIn account, allegedly to disrupt her in a new role she had taken on. She claims that the defendants’ actions constitute a violation of data protection laws and a serious invasion of her privacy.
The defendants deny all claims against them, or that Ms. Chaney is entitled to damages. They claim that the settlement agreement in 2017 resolved all known and unknown claims between them.
In a counterclaim, the defendants claim that the action is a malicious abuse of legal 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 claim in the litigation was submitted to Judge Senan Allen on Friday. Counsel for the defendant requested that preliminary questions of law arising from the action be heard before any full hearing of the action. The request was contested by Ms. Chaney’s attorneys.
Allen J. dismissed the defendants’ claim on grounds such as he did not believe that dealing with the preliminary issues in a separate hearing would ultimately save the time and costs of the action. . The dispute will return to the courts at a later date.
[ad_2]