The High Court has refused applications by the National Standards Authority of Ireland (NSAI) and Coillte Teoranta to strike out claims brought by auditor George O’Malley. The claims will proceed, with the court directing the parties to exchange discovery requests ahead of further case-management directions.
Mr Justice Garrett Simons said the applications, heard together on 14 June 2024, could not resolve the factual disputes or complex legal questions raised by the case. The judgment, delivered on 13 August, does not decide whether Mr O’Malley’s allegations are true or whether any defendant is liable.
Mr O’Malley alleges that Coillte pressed NSAI to remove him as an auditor after he raised issues about Coillte’s compliance with a forestry certification standard, and that NSAI agreed to retain Coillte as a client. He says NSAI’s decision breached a five-year contract and that Coillte induced the breach. He also claims malicious falsehood over statements in an NSAI investigation report that questioned his auditing skills, and alleges conspiracy.
NSAI argued that the contract did not guarantee Mr O’Malley a minimum amount of work and that his malicious falsehood claim lacked the required basis for financial loss. The defendants also challenged the conspiracy claim. The court noted that NSAI had not contested Mr O’Malley’s factual account in detail for the strike-out applications, and that the application evidence did not include accounts from officials directly involved in the events.
The judge found a credible basis for arguing that the contract may have required NSAI to exercise its discretion to assign work reasonably and in good faith. Whether such a duty exists and was breached must be decided at trial. The court also said the malicious falsehood claim could not be dismissed at this stage: a statement questioning an auditor’s professional competence to the accreditation body could potentially cause financial loss. It did not decide whether the statement was false or malicious.
The conspiracy claim was also allowed to proceed at this stage because it depends in part on the contract claim, which the judge found could not be ruled out summarily. The court stressed that the law on conspiracy was not entirely clear and should not be determined on this application.
The defendants’ applications were refused. The judge’s provisional view was that Mr O’Malley should recover the costs of the motions, subject to any submissions at a case-management hearing. The parties were directed to exchange voluntary discovery requests by 12 September 2024 and responses by 26 September. The case was listed for further directions on 9 October 2024, with a view to an early trial.