The chief executive of HR giant Deel is arguing in the High Court that he should not be a defendant in a lawsuit taken by rival firm, Rippling, arising from an alleged corporate spying conspiracy.
Deel chief Alex Bouaziz, the company’s head of legal Andrea David Mieli and lawyer Asif Malik are contesting the court’s jurisdiction to hear Rippling’s case seeking damages against them.
Former Dublin-based Rippling employee, Keith O’Brien, earlier this year admitted to spying on his then-employer for Deel, allegedly on the instruction of Mr Bouaziz.
Rippling brought High Court proceedings against Mr O’Brien following the uncovering of his spying activity, but later entered into a settlement agreement with the Dubliner.
RM Block
Rippling then brought an application seeking to join Mr Bouaziz, Mr Mieli and Mr Malik to the proceedings, alleging the men conspired to breach a High Court order granted to Rippling directing the preservation of evidence relevant to their case.
Rippling alleged that the three men procured Mr O’Brien’s breach of the order, by encouraging him to destroy a mobile phone, among other claims.
The case is also against San Francisco-based Deel Inc., which is not contesting jurisdiction.
Marcus Dowling SC, appearing for Rippling, on Tuesday told Mr Justice Mark Sanfey that Mr Bouaziz, Mr Mieli and Mr Malik should accept that they “have a case to answer in this jurisdiction”, noting that Deel itself had done so in submitting a defence to the action.
Mr Dowling argued that on Deel’s own pleaded case, it is accepted Mr Bouaziz, Mr Mieli and Mr Malik are agents of the company, and Deel appears to take responsibility for their actions.
Mr Dowling submitted that all of the “harm” arising in the case occurred in this jurisdiction.
Mr Dowling submitted Mr O’Brien was allegedly instructed by the defendants to make a false report to the Central Bank relating to alleged Russian payments at Rippling, among other claims.
Counsel alleged the men did not care about orders of the High Court, and conspired to violate the orders.
Declan McGrath SC, appearing for Mr Bouaziz, Mr Mieli and Mr Malik, argued that his clients should not be defendants to the case as the court did not have jurisdiction to join them to the proceedings.
Referring to case law, Mr McGrath said that when asked to join defendants to legal proceedings, the court has to consider the case’s cause of action at the time of the application to join said defendants.
Counsel submitted that the joining of his clients could not be necessary in order for the court to adjudicate on the issues in the proceedings.
This is because, on the date of the application joining them to the proceedings, there were no existing questions in the proceedings, Mr McGrath said – rather, the causes of the action were dealt with in the Rippling’s settlement agreement with Mr O’Brien. The proceedings were then compromised, counsel said.
Mr McGrath submitted that Rippling sought to join the three men in order to pursue a whole series of new causes of action. This was not grounds to join them to the proceedings, he said.
Mr McGrath submitted that while Rippling’s claims against Mr Bouaziz, Mr Mieli and Mr Malik arise out of the same “factual matrix” as the claims against Mr O’Brien, this was not sufficient to give the court jurisdiction to join Mr Bouaziz, Mr Mieli and Mr Malik.
The hearing continues on Tuesday.
