The High Court has stayed Vodafone Ireland Limited’s indemnity proceedings against Rigney Dolphin Limited pending the determination of a separate case brought by Richard Wilson against Vodafone. Rigney Dolphin must deliver its defence within three weeks; the stay otherwise bars further conduct of the proceedings until the Wilson case is determined by the High Court or on appeal, or until further court order.
Mr Justice Mark Sanfey said the stay was necessary and proportionate to prevent unnecessary expense and use of court time. He considered that the issues remaining between Vodafone and Rigney Dolphin after the Wilson case were likely to be relatively narrow and could be progressed quickly. The order did not decide whether Vodafone is entitled to an indemnity or contribution.
Vodafone seeks an indemnity under section 27 of the Civil Liability Act 1961 and under a contract with Rigney Dolphin, or alternatively a contribution, in respect of claims and costs in the Wilson proceedings. Those claims concern an alleged 2010 disclosure of telephone records by a Rigney Dolphin employee, Jolene Hatzer, to Wilson’s father-in-law. Wilson alleges the disclosure exposed contact with a newspaper reporter and the Police Service of Northern Ireland, and led to harassment, threats, intimidation and abuse by his in-laws. These are allegations in the separate proceedings, not findings in this ruling.
Vodafone issued its indemnity case in January 2018, more than seven years after the events at the centre of Wilson’s claim. Rigney Dolphin argued that Vodafone should have joined it as a third party in the Wilson case and that the delay was prejudicial. It asked the court to pause the indemnity claim until Wilson’s case concluded. Vodafone opposed a stay, arguing that the cases should proceed together and that its contract claim extended beyond the statutory indemnity.
The judge accepted that Vodafone could pursue a free-standing contractual claim without using third-party procedure. But he found that the pleadings identified no specific loss beyond Wilson’s claims and the costs of that action. He also noted that Vodafone’s defence in the Wilson case denies liability for Hatzer’s conduct, asserting that she acted on “a frolic of her own”. The judge made no assessment of Vodafone’s prospects in that case.
The court’s ruling followed a motion concerning a stay. A separate motion to link the two proceedings was due to be heard on 14 December 2020; this judgment did not determine that motion. The judge invited written submissions within seven days on issues arising from the proposed orders, including costs.