Grant Thornton (A Firm) v Scanlon

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Paul Gilligan
• Judgment Date: 27 July 2017
• Neutral Citation: [2017] IEHC 648
• Docket Number: [2015 No. 9954 P.]
• Court: High Court
• Date: 27 July 2017

BETWEEN

GRANT THORNTON (A FIRM)

AND

GRANT THORNTON COROPORATE FINANCE LIMITED

PLAINTIFFS

AND

GERALDINE SCANLAN

DEFENDANT

[2017] IEHC 648

[2015 No. 9954 P.]

THE HIGH COURT

Data Protection – Data Protection Acts, 1988 and 2003 – Leakage of confidential information – Disclosure to third parties – Joinder of parties – Cause of action – O. 19, r. 27 of the Rules of the Superior Courts

Facts: The defendant sought an order to permit the defendant to join certain parties to the within proceedings. The plaintiffs had also filed a motion to striking out the defendant's defence and counterclaim on the basis that the same were unnecessary and scandalous. The plaintiffs had initiated the present proceedings for restraining the defendant from sharing the vital piece of information contained in a disc that came into the hands of the defendant due to the mistake of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs asserted that the defendant had disclosed the vital information to third parties while the defendant denied that.

Mr. Justice Paul Gilligan refused to grant the desired reliefs to the defendant. The Court held that the defendant sought to join the Attorney General, the bank and the Data Protection Commissioner in the instant proceedings, which were of no use. The Court noted that the bank had already obtained summary judgment against the defendant for default of making loan payments. The Court struck off certain portions of the defendant's defence as being irrelevant and let the other portions stand as they were. The Court noted that the circumstances in which the defendant received the alleged confidential information had been relevant. The Court struck off the entire counterclaim filed by the defendant except for one singular aspect against which the defendant was directed to set out precisely the nature of that aspect.

JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Paul Gilligan on the 27th day of July, 2017

1 The first motion to come before the Court is the defendant's motion to permit the defendant to join the Attorney General, the Data Protection Commissioner and Danske Bank to the within proceedings.

2 The proceedings concern an incident whereby following a data request in September, 2015 from the defendant, the plaintiff as a result of inadvertence forwarded to the plaintiff a disc which allegedly contained confidential information and/or personal data relating to third parties and alleged confidential proprietary information of the plaintiffs including material that is legally privileged.

3 By letter dated the 3rd of October, 2015 the defendant advised the plaintiff that she had found on the CD furnished to her items of information including deeds of appointment of receivers in respect of properties unconnected with her.

4 The plaintiffs allege that the defendant has utilised the alleged confidential information and shared it with third parties. In these circumstances an application was made to this Court which made an interlocutory order on the 4th December, 2015 pending the determination of these proceedings as follows:

'(1) The defendant (and any person having notice of such order) be restrained from disseminating, communicating by any means whatsoever to any third parties, or otherwise making any use of the confidential information, as more particularly described in the Schedule hereto ('the Confidential Information'), or any part thereof, for any purpose, pending the determination of these proceedings.

(2) The defendant (and any person having notice of such order) be restrained from processing any personal data (other than her own personal data) provided to her by the plaintiffs other than in accordance with the provisions of the Data Protection Acts, 1988 and 2003, pending the determination of these proceedings.

(3) The defendant do provide to the plaintiff's details of all third parties to whom the defendant has disclosed and/or disseminated the confidential information.

(4) The defendant do forthwith deliver up to the plaintiffs all documents and other records containing the confidential information.

(5) The defendant do take all necessary steps to retrieve, recall and/or remove from the public domain, the confidential information which the defendant has disseminated, communicated or otherwise made available to the public.

(6) The defendant do forthwith destroy, erase and delete any confidential information remaining in her possession.

(7) The defendant do forthwith take all practicable steps to retrieve from William McKeogh all of the confidential information provided to Mr. McKeogh by the defendant.'

5 It appears to be the position that the defendant copied the contents of the disc onto three USB keys which contain some or all of the information and the ongoing situation appears to be that the original disc and two of the three USB keys have been returned to the plaintiff but one USB key remains outstanding.

6 The plaintiffs maintain that the defendant has retained the information to which she is not entitled and the defendant denies that she has done so.

7 In the background unidentified third parties have contacted the defendant and discussions have taken place and in this regard the defendant avers that nothing of any consequence arises out of these discussions but it does appear that information relating to third parties who previously had dealings with Danske Bank have come into the public domain and at least one set of proceedings has been instituted against the plaintiffs in this regard.

8 The reality of the situation is that the plaintiffs accept that there is information relating to third parties on the disc that was supplied to the defendant in respect of her data request. Some of the information is totally unrelated to the defendant, a mistake was made, and if the plaintiffs could be satisfied that there is no confidential information arising from the disc in the public domain and that the defendant will not disseminate any confidential information of which she is aware that these proceedings can be at an end.

9 The principal issues that arise between the parties are that having supplied the defendant with the disc with the information thereon relating not only to the defendant but also to third parties:

• is the information relating to the third parties as contained on the disc confidential;

• is the defendant entitled to utilise the information that was on the disc and which relates to third parties for her own purposes?

10 The defendant and her estranged husband lost their property which was subject to a mortgage from Danske Bank by reason of the fact that the loan fell into arrears and the loan was eventually sold in a portfolio of loans.

11 There were proceedings between Danske Bank and the defendant and as between the defendant as plaintiff and Danske Bank and Stephen Tennant as defendants which proceedings came on for hearing before this Court (Fullam J.) under Record No. 2016/2 JIC 2506.

12 In the first of set of proceedings Danske Bank sought an order for summary judgment against the defendant in the sum of €84,439.80. In a second motion Danske Bank and the appointed receiver Stephen Tennant sought an order dismissing a claim by the defendant on the basis that the proceedings disclosed no reasonable cause of action and that the inherent jurisdiction of the court should be evoked to dismiss the proceedings as they were frivolous and vexatious. The defendant is highly critical of the manner in which these proceedings were conducted and in essence allege that the Bank and/or the receivers as appointed misled the court but in any event the result of the proceedings was that judgment was entered in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant, and the defendant's claim was dismissed by the Court in a reasoned written judgment.

13 I take into account the submissions as made on the plaintiffs' behalf by Mr. Collins and the defendant's own submissions as presented by her to the Court both in written form and by way of oral submissions.

14 Insofar as the defendant makes an application to join Danske Bank to these proceedings I take the view that there is no role for Danske Bank within the parameters of the plenary summons or statement of claim as issued and delivered on the plaintiffs' behalf. The issues in this case revolve around its own specific facts and the legal consequences arising therefrom. The involvement of the defendant with Danske Bank relates to a loan she drew down from that Bank, the fact that the loan appears to have fallen into arrears, then a whole range of criticism of the Bank and the proceedings.

15 The judgement of the Court as handed down on the 25th day of February 2016 and the orders arising therefrom have not been appealed and no further proceedings or applications are in being to seek in any way to set aside the orders of Fullam J. and I cannot see any connection between the plaintiffs' action herein and the specific reliefs that are being sought and the defendant's complaints involving Danske Bank. It is also clear that a previous set of proceedings against Danske Bank and Stephen Tennant have already been struck out.

16 Accordingly, the relief as sought by the defendant herein as regards joining Danske Bank to these proceedings is refused.

17 As regards to the defendant's application to join the Attorney General to these proceedings it does appear to be the situation that the pleadings herein do not raise any issue that would require the Attorney General to be joined to the proceedings. It does not appear that any issue is being raised in relation to the constitutionality of any statute nor is any issue being raised in...