Latest news with #Balrothery
BreakingNews.ie
11-07-2025
- Business
- BreakingNews.ie
Judge satisfied with letter from law firm explaining 'no knowledge' of surveillance
A High Court judge has said he is satisfied with a letter from a law firm which explained how it wrote a letter to lawyers for a man at the centre of the business "spy" affair, saying its client had no knowledge of two cars alleged to have been surveilling the man and his family. Mr Justice Cregan had asked that his concerns should be addressed in relation to a letter written by Hayes Solicitors LLP, on behalf of its client global HR firm Deel Inc, saying they had no knowledge of the identities behind the registrations of two cars which had allegedly been following payroll manager Keith O'Brien to and from his home in Balrothery, north Dublin. Advertisement Mr O'Brien, who was employed in Dublin by Deel rival Rippling, admitted being paid €5,500 a month by Deel in return for trade secrets of his employer. He later apologised for the espionage and began cooperating with Rippling when it sued him, Deel and others. As a result, Rippling is not seeking any reliefs against him. Mr O'Brien brought his own proceedings alleging intimidation and harassment from surveillance by what were initially only "persons unknown" who were drivers/owners of two cars seen allegedly following him. Later, private investigation firms of Mark Murran, also known as Rock Investigations and Security, and Cliona Woods, trading as Gotham Services, became the defendants. They strongly deny any overt surveillance or claims of harassment and intimidation. Advertisement The Hayes letter on behalf of Deel denying knowledge of surveillance by two particular cars was sent in reply to a pre-litigation letter sent by Mr O'Brien's solicitor seeking that the surveillance should stop. During hearings before Mr Justice Cregan, he expressed his concern at the content of the Hayes letter, at one point saying it was either "a blatant lie or misrepresentation". This was after Deel had revealed it had commissioned "discreet" surveillance, and Hayes accepted the letter was incorrect but true at the time, according to the instructions it received. On Thursday, the judge said he had been unfair to Hayes but believed the matter could be resolved by Hayes simply writing another letter correcting the record. On Friday, Michael Cush SC, for Hayes, said his side had taken up the judge's suggestion and written the letter. Mr Cush said the letter explained Hayes had no independent knowledge that Deel had ordered surveillance, but once it informed the firm it had, it was brought to the attention of the court. Advertisement Mr Cush said he hoped the letter had the effect of satisfying the court and that Hayes at all times acted with absolute professionalism and integrity. The judge thanked Mr Cush for going to that trouble to resolve his concerns. Declan McGrath SC, for Deel, said from his client's perspective, an affidavit had been sworn by Jerome Soine, CEO of a Germany-based security firm, ISN International Security Network, apologising for what happened. Mr Soine said on making enquiries, his company was not aware of the identities of the car owners/drivers or that anyone had been retained by Ms Woods. Therefore, ISN told Deel they had not engaged the people using these particular vehicles. However, it subsequently transpired, following further information from Ms Woods, that one of the vehicles - the other was completely innocent and not involved in any surveillance - was involved. Mr Soine regretted he did not tell Deel sooner and apologised on behalf of ISN. Mr Justice Cregan said he thought that now resolved the matter.
BreakingNews.ie
25-06-2025
- Business
- BreakingNews.ie
Deel admits it instructed 'discreet' surveillance on spy case man
One of the companies in the international HR firms' "spy" dispute instructed that "discreet" surveillance be carried out on the Irish payroll compliance manager at the centre of High Court proceedings over the affair, a High Court judge has been told. US headquartered Deel Inc, which allegedly recruited Dublin man Keith O'Brien to pass on trade secrets to it from his employer Rippling, also headquartered in the US, did not instruct that there be covert or intimidatory surveillance on Mr O'Brien, Mr Justice Brian Cregan was told. Advertisement Last Friday, Mr O'Brien, of Balrothery in north Dublin, was granted a one side only represented injunction preventing "persons unknown", who were seen driving two different cars in the vicinity of Mr O'Brien's home and workplace, from harassing or intimidating him by following, photographing and recording him or members of his family. They were also restrained from attending within one kilometre of those places. The case was against persons unknown because his lawyers did not, at that stage, know the identities of the owners/drivers of the vehicles. The court was also told by Imogen McGrath SC, for Mr O'Brien, that it was believed the people involved were working for Deel and the conduct was designed to intimidate him because he had agreed to cooperate with Rippling in a separate case it is bringing over the spy affair against Deel and Mr O'Brien. Advertisement The court heard however that, in response to requests to desist, Deel's solicitors Hayes LLP had written to say their client had "no knowledge" of surveillance by any persons in the vehicles identified. On Wednesday, when the case returned to the High Court, Ms McGrath said there had been dramatic developments over the previous 24 hours. The identities associated with the two cars had been provided and the owner/driver of one car allegedly seen in one incident, a couple who attended court, were not involved in any surveillance and the case against them was being discontinued, counsel said. The driver of the second vehicle, which was involved in five other alleged incidents of following and surveilling, had also come forward. Advertisement John O'Regan BL, for the second driver, asked the judge that his client's name be anonymised until he is able to make a formal application in this respect. Counsel said the application will be in accordance with case precedent or statute law because his client has significant health issues and operates "in the sphere of surveillance", and revealing his identity could put his safety at risk and damage his business. Counsel also asked the case be put back as his client, while refuting Mr O'Brien's claims, wanted to come to a practical agreement in relation to the court orders. Mr Justice Cregan said he was prepared to hear the application for anonymisation of the defendant but was reluctant to make an order in relation to that at this stage. Advertisement The court heard that while Deel was not a defendant in Mr O'Brien's action, which includes a claim for damages, the judge had directed that their lawyers attend court on Wednesday to say why they should or should not be a party. Paul Gardiner SC, for Deel, told the judge his client had instructed that "discreet surveillance" be carried out on Mr O'Brien, but there was no question that it should be covert and used to intimidate or harass him. "My client (Deel) engaged with Person B (to carry out surveillance) and unknown to us, they engaged Person A and Deel was not involved in instructing anyone to carry out intimidation, and we refute that", he said. The judge said given Deel's solicitors' response to requests to desist from Mr O'Brien's lawyers of having "no knowledge" of those involved in following him, it "could be interpreted as being economical with the verité (truth)". Advertisement Mr Gardiner replied his side only ascertained the actual position over the weekend. He also said his client was agreeable to not surveilling Mr O'Brien any further, and if he wished that Deel should be a defendant, he should serve papers to that effect. Ms McGrath, for Mr O'Brien, said they would have to consider that as they would need to see what instructions, including text messages, Deel gave to Person B to carry out the surveillance. The judge continued the injunctions and adjourned the matter for a week.
Irish Times
25-06-2025
- Irish Times
US HR firm Deel admits it instructed ‘discreet' surveillance on manager at centre of ‘spy' case
One of the companies in the international human resources (HR) firms' 'spy' dispute instructed that 'discreet' surveillance be carried out on the Irish payroll compliance manager at the centre of High Court proceedings over the affair, a judge was told on Wednesday. US headquartered Deel Inc, which allegedly recruited Dublin man Keith O'Brien to pass on trade secrets to it from his employer Rippling, also headquartered in the US, did not instruct that there be covert or intimidatory surveillance on Mr O'Brien, Mr Justice Brian Cregan was told. Last Friday, Mr O'Brien, of Balrothery in north Dublin, was granted a one side only represented injunction preventing 'persons unknown', who were seen driving two different cars in the vicinity of Mr O'Brien's home and workplace, from harassing or intimidating him by following, photographing and recording him or members of his family. They were also restrained from attending within one kilometre of those places. READ MORE The case was against persons unknown because his lawyers did not at that stage know the identities of the owners/drivers of the vehicles. The court was also told by Imogen McGrath SC, for Mr O'Brien, that it was believed the people involved were working for Deel and the conduct was designed to intimidate him because he had agreed to co-operate with Rippling in a separate case it is bringing over the spy affair against Deel and Mr O'Brien. The court heard however that, in response to requests to desist, Deel's solicitors Hayes LLP had written to say their client had 'no knowledge' of surveillance by any persons in the vehicles identified. On Wednesday, when the case returned to the High Court, Ms McGrath said there had been dramatic developments over the previous 24 hours. The identities associated with the two cars had been provided and the owner/driver of one car allegedly seen in one incident, a couple who attended court, were not involved in any surveillance and the case against them was being discontinued, counsel said. The driver of the second vehicle which was involved in five other alleged incidents of following and surveilling had also come forward. John O'Regan BL, for the second driver, asked the judge that his client's name be anonymised until he is able to make a formal application in this respect. Counsel said the application will be in accordance with case precedent or statute law because his client has significant health issues and operates 'in the sphere of surveillance' and revealing his identity could put his safety at risk and damage his business. Counsel also asked the case be put back as his client, while refuting Mr O'Brien's claims, wanted to come to a practical agreement in relation to the court orders. Mr Justice Cregan said he was prepared to hear the application for anonymisation of the defendant but was reluctant to make an order in relation to that at this stage. The court heard that while Deel was not a defendant in Mr O'Brien's action, which includes a claim for damages, the judge had directed that their lawyers attend court on Wednesday to say why they should or should not be a party. Paul Gardiner SC, for Deel, told the judge his client had instructed that 'discreet surveillance' be carried out on Mr O'Brien but there was no question that it should be covert and used to intimidate or harass him. 'My client (Deel) engaged with Person B (to carry out surveillance) and unknown to us they engaged Person A and Deel was not involved in instructing anyone to carry out intimidation and we refute that', he said. The judge said given Deel's solicitors' response to requests to desist from Mr O'Brien's lawyers of having 'no knowledge' of those involved in following him, it 'could be interpreted as being economical with the verité (truth)'. Mr Gardiner replied his side only ascertained the actual position over the weekend. He also said his client was agreeable to not surveilling Mr O'Brien any further and if he (O'Brien) wished that Deel should be a defendant he should serve papers to that effect. Ms McGrath, for Mr O'Brien, said they would have to consider that as they would need to see what instructions, including text messages, Deel gave to Person B to carry out the surveillance. The judge continued the injunctions and adjourned the matter for a week.
