Kelly v Store All Logistics Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: High Court
• Judge: Mr. Justice Liam Kennedy
• Judgment Date: 23 April 2026
• Neutral Citation: [2026] IEHC 241
• Docket Number: [Record No: H.P. 2025/3453]

Between

John Paul Kelly

Plaintiff

and

Store All Logistics Limited

Defendant

[2026] IEHC 241

[Record No: H.P. 2025/3453]

THE HIGH COURT

Employment – Breach of contract – Dismissal – Defendant seeking the dismissal of the claim to equitable reliefs – Whether the equitable reliefs sought by the plaintiff were unsustainable

Facts: The plaintiff, Mr Kelly, was the managing director (MD) of the defendant, Store All Logistics Ltd, and one of its principal shareholders. He claimed that the defendant breached his employment contract by seeking to sideline or supplant him as MD. In addition, the defendant, its officers and certain employees raised issues in respect of his conduct (and vice versa, with him advancing counter-allegations). This included disciplinary proceedings concerning a claim that he bullied a senior employee. In addition, the plaintiff indicated his intention to commence oppression proceedings. On 27 November 2025, the High Court (Kennedy J) rejected an application for interlocutory relief. That judgment was followed by a hearing on 10 December 2025 to settle arrangements pending trial for the provision of information to the plaintiff for the purposes of his role as MD. The plaintiff accepted that, on the weekend of 13-14 December 2025, he used his administrator privileges to access the defendant’s IT systems and download thousands of emails from at least three colleagues’ email accounts, including information which was evidently private, confidential and legally privileged (the Incident). The defendant said that the Incident was an attempt to obtain an improper litigation advantage, both in these proceedings and in the disciplinary proceedings. The defendant sought various interlocutory remedies, including the dismissal of this entire claim, or at least the claim to equitable reliefs, in response to the plaintiff’s actions.

Held by Kennedy J that, having considered the plaintiff’s actions and their implications and consequences, the adequacy of his apology, explanations and response (including the evolving positions adopted on his behalf), the equitable reliefs sought by the plaintiff were unsustainable and must be struck out. Kennedy J also confirmed his decision to discharge the undertakings previously tendered by the defendant at his invitation. He also directed the plaintiff to file a detailed affidavit in relation to the Incident and to take or refrain from taking various steps.

Kennedy J held that some conclusions in respect of the Incident must be regarded as provisional and that it may be premature to dismiss the entire claim. He adjourned that part of the application. Depending on how matters would unfold as further information emerged in respect of the Incident and its ramifications, he found that it may still be appropriate for him, or the trial judge, to take that step in due course. Kennedy J held that the adequacy of the plaintiff’s response to the Incident and the information which would emerge as to his actions and their impact would determine whether the proceedings would go to trial.

Application adjourned in part.

JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Liam Kennedy delivered on 23 April 2026 .

1 . The defendant seeks various interlocutory remedies, including the dismissal of this entire claim, or at least the claim to equitable reliefs, in response to the plaintiff's actions. On the weekend of 13–14 December, he used his administrator privileges to access the defendant's IT systems and download thousands of emails from at least three colleagues' email accounts, including information which was evidently private, confidential and legally privileged (“the Incident”). The defendant says that the Incident was an attempt to obtain an improper litigation advantage, both in these proceedings and in ongoing disciplinary proceedings. This judgment considers the plaintiff's actions and their implications and consequences, the adequacy of his apology, explanations and response (including the evolving positions adopted on his behalf). I am satisfied that the equitable reliefs sought by the plaintiff are now unsustainable and must be struck out and I should also confirm my decision to discharge the undertakings previously tendered by the defendant at my invitation. I will also direct the plaintiff to file a detailed affidavit in relation to the Incident and to take or refrain from taking various steps as outlined below. However, some conclusions in respect of the Incident must be regarded as provisional and it may be premature to dismiss the entire claim at this stage, so I will adjourn that part of the application. Depending on how matters unfold as further information emerges in respect of the Incident and its ramifications, it may still be appropriate for me, or the trial judge, to take that step in due course. The adequacy of the plaintiff's response to the Incident and the information which emerges as to his actions and their impact will determine whether these proceedings go to trial.

Introduction

2 . The plaintiff is the defendant's managing director (“MD”) and one of its principal shareholders. These proceedings concern his claim that the defendant breached his employment contract by seeking to sideline or supplant him as MD. In addition, the defendant, its officers and certain employees have raised issues in respect of his conduct (and vice versa, with him advancing counter-allegations). This includes ongoing disciplinary proceedings concerning a claim that he bullied a senior employee (“the Collingwood Complaint”). In addition, the plaintiff has indicated his intention to commence oppression proceedings.

3 . My 27 November 2025 judgment (“the Judgment”) rejected an application for interlocutory relief and was followed by a hearing on 10 December 2025 to settle arrangements pending trial for the provision of information to the plaintiff for the purposes of his role as MD. The plaintiff accepts that, days after that hearing, on the weekend of 13–14 December, he used his corporate IT privileges as MD to access and download information from three colleagues' email accounts, those pertaining to two of the defendant's directors and a senior executive, the complainant in the Collingwood Complaint. Those individuals have key roles in the dispute in these proceedings and the other controversies between the parties. Although the plaintiff has been unforthcoming as to details of what was downloaded, the defendant's evidence suggests that a significant volume of confidential information was downloaded, including messages which were extremely private, sensitive, confidential and legally privileged, and obviously so.

4 . The plaintiff has not yet provided full details of the extent of the Incident and there are controversies as to how much data was downloaded, which devices were employed and whether other email accounts were also accessed. However, he admits accessing the three email accounts and downloading “a significant number” of emails therefrom. He has generally not taken issue with the defendant's specific averments as to the scale of the Incident or the examples of documents accessed save that he denies suggestions that two further email accounts were accessed or that he used a disc drive as well as his Surface Pro. I will accordingly disregard those two controversial allegations which have yet to be established. Although his position has not always been clear, in response to the current application, the plaintiff apologised “unreservedly” for the Incident and accepted that it was a serious error of judgment due to “extreme stress”. He says that he neither used the information “read by” him nor shared it with his lawyers or anyone else, nor has he retained copies in any format.

Reliefs Sought

5 . In brief, in the alternative to the orders dismissing the proceedings or striking out the claims to equitable reliefs, the defendant seeks to require the plaintiff to furnish an affidavit confirming the detail of the Incident and to restrain his actions in various respects pending trial. It also sought ancillary orders, including as to costs, a particularly significant issue as a result of the forensic examinations triggered by the Incident. The plaintiff opposes the dismissal of the proceedings or the equitable reliefs and says that the issue should be left for the trial judge and other reliefs are unnecessary as he has explained the Incident and offered undertakings.

Background

6 . The Judgment summarised the proceedings noting that: (a) the plaintiff is one of the defendant's longstanding shareholders, directors and employees and its MD; (b) these proceedings concern his disputes with his fellow shareholder/directors and with senior executives and employees concerning the company's structure, governance and management. Such issues resulted in this litigation and duelling HR complaints, investigations and proceedings, including the Collingwood Complaint; (c) in these proceedings he accuses the company of effectively sidelining or preparing to dismiss him by changing corporate reporting lines. The defendant denied his allegations. The interlocutory judgment, in short: (a) criticised both sides, noting issues as to the plaintiff's own conduct, including his “resignation” and his contribution to the controversies; (b) determined that he had established a fair question to be tried on some issues, including whether proposed changes constituted (attempted) constructive dismissal; (c) criticised the defendant's failure to furnish information to him, while noting the extent to which the plaintiff's own erratic behaviour had left the Board little option but to intervene; (d) concluded that the plaintiff had established a strong case that the defendant had sidelined him in breach of contract but that the Court could well award damages rather than injunctive relief; (e) concluded that the plaintiff had also established a fair question (but not a strong...