The High Court has granted AIB an interlocutory injunction against three former employees and Centralis over alleged steps to move customers and business from AIB’s international financial services operations. The restrictions are due to run until trial or 20 March 2012, whichever comes first.
Mr Justice Clarke said AIB had a strong arguable case that some employees took steps while still employed to facilitate a transfer of customers and confidential information to Centralis. The allegations included approaching customers, downloading customer information and preparing documents about customer arrangements. The defendants disputed AIB’s account and offered legitimate explanations for the material and activity. The judge did not decide the disputed facts; their determination was left to trial.
The injunction applies to Pat Foley, Gerry McEvoy, Derek O’Reilly and the Centralis defendants. It bars solicitation of AIB customers as of August 2010, who are to be identified in a schedule to the order. It also bars concluding business with those customers where solicitation has already occurred. The court declined to prohibit all dealings with those customers, saying that could prevent a customer from moving to Centralis without solicitation. The order also restricts use of confidential information, but the judge said its definition must be set out more precisely. The proposed terms for use restrictions and return of information required further submissions.
The court did not impose an injunction against Joe Walsh. Although he appeared to have been involved in the overall plan, the judge found the evidence insufficient at this stage to show that he knowingly participated in or approved an unlawful implementation. He was to be released from his existing undertaking. The applications against Pat Diamond and Andrew O’Shea did not proceed after undertakings were given; the judge recorded that Diamond undertook not to become involved in Centralis.
AIB had also pointed to an apparent €22 million reduction in Capita’s proposed purchase price for the businesses. The judge said any loss of that kind had already occurred and was not a loss an injunction could prevent. He found that damages would not adequately address the potential future harm to AIB’s business interests, while also recognising that an injunction could harm Centralis and the individual defendants if they ultimately succeeded at trial. He considered the narrower, time-limited restrictions a suitable balance.
The court directed that efforts be made to secure an early trial and said it would hear further submissions on the necessary directions and on the schedules defining customers and confidential information. The ruling concerns interim relief; it does not resolve the underlying claims.