The High Court has refused an application by Aventis Solutions Limited and Harry Parkinson for security for costs in Credebt Exchange Limited’s case over the alleged disclosure and use of confidential company documents.
In a judgment delivered on 9 October 2024, Ms Justice Siobhán Phelan held that the defendants had not established a real risk that Credebt would be unable to pay a costs order if they successfully defended the case. The court therefore refused to require Credebt to provide security.
Credebt alleges that Mr Parkinson, a former managing director of one of its divisions, disclosed 21 documents and 119 emails to Aventis after leaving the company. It says the disclosure breached his employment contract and a non-disclosure agreement. Credebt also alleges that Aventis unlawfully used the material in separate trade finance proceedings. The defendants deny the claims. Aventis says the documents were not confidential and that its solicitors received them unsolicited from a whistle-blower.
The defendants argued that they had a prima facie defence, including reliance on the Protected Disclosures Act 2014. The judge identified weaknesses in the defence arguments, including that the statutory defence had not been properly pleaded or developed. She did not reach a concluded view on whether a prima facie defence had been established, however, because she found it unnecessary to decide that issue once the financial-risk test was not met.
The court considered Credebt’s audited accounts. The 2020 accounts showed net profit after tax of €671,731, cash reserves of €5.84 million and net assets of about €1.87 million. The judgment said the 2021 accounts showed cash reserves exceeding €27 million. The defendants had not provided a satisfactory estimate of the likely costs of this case. On the evidence, the judge was not satisfied there was a real risk that a costs order could not be enforced against Credebt in Ireland.
The court did not decide whether the defendants’ conduct, including matters raised in submissions about online reviews and a Garda complaint, amounted to special circumstances against an order. It also gave negligible weight to arguments about the merits of the separate trade finance case.
The judge directed that this matter be listed for mention alongside the related trade finance proceedings after 14 days, so the parties could be heard before final orders are settled. The judgment does not determine the underlying confidentiality claims.