The High Court has ordered Google Ireland Limited to provide information linked to a Gmail account used to send emails about Portakabin, after finding that the companies had made a sufficient case to identify the author and pursue legal redress.
Mr Justice Allen made the Norwich Pharmacal order on 2 July 2021. Google must provide the plaintiffs’ solicitors, within 21 days of service of the order, with subscriber information and sign-up IP addresses and associated timestamps for [email protected], to the extent the information was held by or available to Google on the date of the order.
The order followed an application by Portakabin Limited and its Irish subsidiary. They said customers received emails from the account on 10 March and 8 April 2021, signed “John Smith”. The emails alleged that Portakabin products faced regulatory approval difficulties and did not meet required standards, and that a senior manager had resigned over product quality issues.
The companies also linked the emails to anonymous letters sent to customers and management from October 2020. They said those letters made allegations of criminal misconduct against individuals. An external review found no evidence to substantiate those allegations, and the companies believed them to be untrue. A forensic and integrity services provider engaged by the first plaintiff said there was a strong likelihood the emails and letters had the same author.
The plaintiffs described the communications as defamatory and damaging to their reputation and business. They sought the information to bring legal proceedings and said they might take disciplinary action if the author was an employee. Justice Allen said the application was within the established jurisdiction for disclosure orders, which may be used to help pursue redress for alleged defamation and business harm. He said the possibility of disciplinary action did not take this application outside that jurisdiction.
An anonymous letter sent to the judge identified its author as the “whistleblower” behind the emails, sought to justify the communications and asked the court not to reveal the author’s identity. The judgment said a person’s use of that label did not establish that the communications were protected disclosures under the Protected Disclosures Act 2014. Whether a disclosure qualifies is a question of fact.
The judge expressly made no finding on whether the statements were true. He said the plaintiffs had put forward evidence which, if accepted at trial, could support the proceedings they proposed and disciplinary action against the author. The information disclosed under the order may be used only to pursue legal redress over the statements or, if the author is an employee, to take disciplinary steps. There was no order as to costs.