The High Court has allowed Vodafone Ireland Limited to amend its defence in a case brought by Dundalk taxi driver Richard Wilson over the alleged disclosure of his phone records. Mr Justice Noonan said the amendments could proceed, subject to any consequential changes Mr Wilson wished to make to his pleadings.
The decision concerns the defendant’s application to add five pleas. They include that the claim is statute barred, that Mr Wilson lacks an authorisation from the Personal Injuries Assessment Board, and that any conduct by Jolene Hatzer occurred on her own initiative and contrary to instructions. Vodafone also sought to deny liability for alleged wrongdoing by Patrick O’Meara senior and junior, and to argue that Mr Wilson was identified with alleged wrongdoing by several parties under the Civil Liability Act 1961.
The court did not determine whether phone records were accessed or disclosed, whether Ms Hatzer worked for Vodafone, or whether the claim is time barred. Those matters remain pleaded issues. The judgment addresses whether the defence could be amended.
Mr Wilson’s claim alleges that in February 2010 Ms Hatzer accessed his call data and passed information to his in-laws. He says the disclosure caused personal, family and financial harm. Vodafone’s original defence denied the claim and put him to proof, including on whether Ms Hatzer was its employee. The judgment records Vodafone’s later position that its human resources department could not find employee records for her, and that she may have worked for Rigney Dolphin, a call-centre operator.
Mr Wilson opposed the amendments, arguing that Vodafone’s conduct had misled him about Ms Hatzer’s employment and that he was now too late to sue other parties. Vodafone argued that the claim was, at least in part, a personal injuries claim subject to a two-year limitation period, and that the amendments created no new prejudice.
Mr Justice Noonan applied the principle that pleadings may generally be amended so the real issues can be decided. He found that the prejudice relied on by Mr Wilson—the lost opportunity to sue others—did not arise from the amendments themselves. The original defence had already disputed Ms Hatzer’s employment, and the judge said Mr Wilson could have asked her about her employer. The court concluded the alleged prejudice could not fairly be attributed to Vodafone.
Two other motions were also before the court. The plaintiff’s discovery motion was struck out after additional documents were produced, with costs awarded to him. A motion concerning particulars was dealt with at the hearing. The judgment gives no further detail of the order on that second motion.