The High Court has narrowed the defence and counterclaim in a dispute over a disc Grant Thornton says it mistakenly sent to Geraldine Scanlan, but has not decided whether the information was confidential or whether it was misused.
In a judgment dated 27 July 2017, Mr Justice Paul Gilligan refused Ms Scanlan’s applications to join the Attorney General, the Data Protection Commissioner and Danske Bank to the proceedings. He also refused her application for cross-examination of a witness on affidavits, saying the matter could be addressed at trial through oral evidence or a witness summons. Her separate application concerning counsel was withdrawn.
The case arises from a September 2015 data request. The judgment says Grant Thornton inadvertently sent Ms Scanlan a disc that included information about third parties and material the firm alleged was confidential, proprietary or legally privileged. The plaintiffs allege she used and shared confidential information; Ms Scanlan denies retaining information to which she was not entitled. An interlocutory order made in December 2015 restricted use and disclosure and required steps including delivery up and deletion. The judgment records that the disc and two of three USB keys had been returned, while one USB key remained outstanding.
The judge said the present proceedings concern the disc and the plaintiffs’ claims about the information on it. The underlying questions—including whether the third-party information is confidential and whether Ms Scanlan may use it—remain for determination on evidence at trial. The judge also left for another stage whether allegations about a January 2017 without-prejudice meeting raised a breach of the earlier order.
The plaintiffs had asked the court to strike out the defence and counterclaim. The judge described the first 34 defence paragraphs as complaints that did not deny the plaintiffs’ pleaded case, and found many other paragraphs irrelevant to the issues. He allowed specified paragraphs to remain, subject to being pleaded succinctly as denials or, where appropriate, positive assertions; all other defence paragraphs were struck out. He said the defence could include simple denials of the plaintiffs’ claims.
The entire counterclaim was struck out except for a proposed claim for damages under section 7 of the Data Protection Acts 1988-2003. The judge directed Ms Scanlan to set out that claim’s nature, extent and basis in detail. He said he would hear submissions on the form of the order and deadlines. The judgment did not determine the parties’ underlying claims.