The High Court has refused to dismiss a woman’s personal injury claim alleging that Garda data about her address was improperly disclosed to a summons server acting for a former partner who had previously subjected her to violence and rape.
In a judgment delivered on 6 October 2017, Mr Justice Noonan dismissed an application by the Commissioner of An Garda Síochána, Ireland and the Attorney General to strike out the claim. The defendants had argued that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action or was bound to fail.
The judgment records that the plaintiff changed residence after the earlier violence to protect herself and her children. She alleged that, on 7 or 8 January 2011, a summons server arrived at her home to serve family law proceedings on behalf of the former partner. She said the discovery that he appeared to know where she lived caused severe shock and alarm, affected her recovery and led to an acute anxiety reaction, medication and stress-related headaches.
The plaintiff later complained to An Garda Síochána and the Garda Ombudsman. A letter from the Ombudsman dated 6 November 2012 said a Garda computer system had been accessed on 6 January 2011 and address details apparently disclosed. In a further letter dated 15 June 2013, the Ombudsman said the member identified denied making the disclosure and that another person might have used that member’s identification. The investigation closed without positively identifying who disclosed the information.
The defendants submitted that data-protection exceptions and Garda functions allowed disclosure connected with legal proceedings. They also argued that the plaintiff had not pleaded legally recognised damage. Justice Noonan said it was at least arguable that disclosure to the former partner’s agent was not legally required or necessary for the administration of justice, and that the circumstances of access and disclosure required examination at trial. He also considered that the pleaded depression-related medication and headaches could provide a basis for actionable damage.
The court did not determine who accessed the system, whether the disclosure was unlawful, or whether the plaintiff would ultimately succeed. It refused to dismiss the claim, saying it was unnecessary to consider the defendants’ further arguments about the alternative causes of action. The judgment leaves those issues for later proceedings.