The High Court has ordered Intesa Sanpaolo Vita S.p.A. to provide limited discovery to former employee Agnieszka Nowak in her long-running breach-of-contract case arising from her dismissal in August 2015.
Nowak, who is representing herself, is seeking €250,000 in damages, a declaration that her termination was invalid and reinstatement to her previous role. Separate unfair-dismissal proceedings arising from the same events remain due for substantive hearing in the Circuit Court.
The High Court proceedings began in February 2016, with a second action issued in September 2017. They were consolidated in June 2024. Nowak sought voluntary discovery the following month and issued a motion in September after correspondence with the company’s solicitors about further time to respond.
A Deputy Master refused her application in December 2024. Nowak appealed that decision to the High Court.
Mr Justice Barry O’Donnell held that documents concerning the process which led to Nowak’s dismissal were relevant and necessary. Her pleadings challenge the authority of Dave Sheehan to conduct the disciplinary process and terminate her employment. The company disputes those claims and says he had the necessary authority, with the decision later ratified by its chief executive.
The court therefore ordered discovery of documents showing how the termination decision was reached, including material evidencing the authority or instructions given to those involved and any ratification by the chief executive.
Nowak also sought detailed salary, employment, qualification and tax records for four named colleagues. The court refused that broader request, finding that the pleaded case did not clearly establish a comparator-based equal-pay claim and describing the request as having some characteristics of a fishing exercise.
Instead, the company must disclose documents from 2009 to 2015 showing any review of Nowak’s own remuneration.
The court awarded Nowak 75% of the costs recoverable by a self-represented applicant for the discovery applications. That costs order is stayed pending the outcome of the proceedings, while the timetable for discovery was left open pending a further hearing.