Two people who were allegedly involved in following and harassing the man at the centre of a “spying” row between two rival HR giants have been added as defendants in a High Court case related to the affair.
Retired private investigator Mark Murran, otherwise known as Rock Investigations, was allegedly the driver of a car involved in following and keeping surveillance of Keith O’Brien, the court heard. Mr O’Brien is a former Dublin-based payroll manager with Rippling, a US-headquartered multibillion-dollar HR software provider.
Cliona Woods of Dublin-based Gotham Services was allegedly involved in organising “discreet surveillance”. Both were joined as defendants in Mr O’Brien’s action over the matter.
Both “categorically refute” Mr O’Brien’s allegations of intimidation and harassment. They say the surveillance was discreet. This was relayed to the court by their barrister, John O’Regan, on Tuesday.
Is your community letting wild flowers grow or encouraging cycling? Could your area be one of Ireland’s Greenest Places?
Leaving Cert party on Zante: ‘If I had children, I wouldn’t want them to go on a holiday like this’
Dublin electric car owner ordered to remove ‘unauthorised’ charging arm by council
Róisín Ingle: What a gift to get married when your children are there to see it
The case was back before Mr Justice Brian Cregan to deal with a number of applications in advance of the hearing of the case, including changing the defendants from “persons unknown” to the two named defendants.
It was also back in to consider whether Deel Inc – the other US-based HR firm involved – should also be joined to the case. Deel allegedly paid Mr O’Brien, of Balrothery in north Dublin, to pass on Rippling’s trade secrets to it, a claim it denies.
Imogen McGrath SC, for Mr O’Brien, said the defendants had consented to an order not to surveil Mr O’Brien pending determination of the proceedings.
Counsel said she was not making an application to join Deel as the purpose of the case was to resolve the dispute between her client and the defendants. There may also be a third defendant but her side needed time to write to that potential defendant, she said.
Counsel also said there was a significant dispute over whether the surveillance amounted to harassment, which the defendants say it did not.
Mr Justice Cregan said he had been mulling over the issue and he was considering joining Deel at the motion of the court. While this was against the wishes of the O’Brien side, he did it in the context of an earlier claim that the surveillance was an interference with the administration of justice. This claim was based on the fact Mr O’Brien is a defendant and witness in separate proceedings being brought over the alleged spying affair by Rippling against Deel.
It was also in circumstances where Deel’s lawyers had, in a pre-litigation letter in reply to Mr O’Brien’s solicitor, said it had no knowledge of the particular alleged surveillance being carried out.
“That letter is either a blatant lie or a misrepresentation,” the judge said.
He said the defendants were employed by Deel, which meant it was directly implicated. Ms McGrath asked the court to first allow the parties (her client and Deel) to exchange pleadings in the normal way.
Paul Gardiner SC, for Deel, said he took “grave exception to what the court said”.
He believed the court should not be pronouncing on a letter as misrepresentation until it had heard all the facts. His side had written that letter according to what it believed to be true at the time, he said.
If the plaintiff says it did not want Deel joined, it was not for the court to say it should, he said. His client had actually invited the O’Brien side to do so but it chose not to.
Counsel also pointed out that Mr O’Brien has entered into a co-operation agreement with Rippling, has agreed not to seek any reliefs against him in the separate Rippling/Deel case and has waived all claims against him.
The judge said he knew that joining a defendant to proceedings at the court’s own motion was an exceptional jurisdiction but that was in the circumstances of the allegations of intimidation and a letter which appeared to be manifestly misleading.
He said he wanted to reflect on the matter and will decide at the end of the week whether to hear submissions from the parties on the issue.
He also said given that Mr Gardiner accepted the letter was incorrect, he did not see why counsel took “such umbrage at my interpretation”. Ms McGrath said she thought Mr Gardiner “is making a mountain out of a very small molehill”.
He continued the injunctions restraining surveillance of Mr O’Brien and requiring the defendants to preserve any evidence which may be used in the case. He would also hear an application on Friday by the defendants requiring Mr O’Brien to preserve evidence.
