Grant Thornton (A Firm) & anor v Scanlan (Approved) [2020] IEHC 509 (02 June 2020)

Grant Thornton (A Firm) & anor v Scanlan (Approved) [2020] IEHC 509 (02 June 2020)

The High Court has jurisdiction to hear the plaintiff's claim for injunctive relief; the defendant has accepted jurisdiction by entering appearance and consenting to orders. The Data Protection Commissioner cannot grant the reliefs sought. The defendant's motion for jurisdiction is rejected. Portions of the revised defence and counterclaim are struck out as non-compliant with previous orders and as unnecessary, scandalous, or lacking standing.

Citation
[2020] IEHC 509
Parties
Plaintiff: Grant Thornton (A Firm); Plaintiff: Grant Thornton Corporate Finance Limited; Defendant: Geraldine Scanlan
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
02 June 2020
Procedural Posture
High Court Civil Proceedings / Ruling on Jurisdiction and Scope of Defence Motions
Outcome
Defendant's jurisdiction motion declined in its entirety; plaintiff's scope of defence motion granted in part.
Legal Topics
Injunctive Relief, Jurisdiction, Locus Standi, Pleadings, Data Protection Commissioner, Strike Out Applications
Data Protection Civil Procedure Equity Injunctive Relief Jurisdiction Locus Standi Pleadings Data Protection Commissioner +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Grant Thornton (A Firm)

Plaintiff

Grant Thornton Corporate Finance Limited

Plaintiff

Geraldine Scanlan

Defendant

Procedural Posture

High Court Civil Proceedings / Ruling on Jurisdiction and Scope of Defence Motions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to hear the plaintiff's claim for injunctive relief relating to confidential information and data protection
  2. 2 Whether the defendant is entitled to have the matter adjudicated by the Data Protection Commissioner before the High Court
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff has locus standi to bring proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court has jurisdiction to hear the plaintiff's claim for injunctive relief; the defendant has accepted jurisdiction by entering appearance and consenting to orders. The Data Protection Commissioner cannot grant the reliefs sought. The defendant's motion for jurisdiction is rejected. Portions of the revised defence and counterclaim are struck out as non-compliant with previous orders and as unnecessary, scandalous, or lacking standing.

Court Disposition

Defendant's jurisdiction motion declined in its entirety; plaintiff's scope of defence motion granted in part.

Orders

  • Reliefs in defendant's jurisdiction motion (1-8) declined.
  • Specified paragraphs of defendant's revised defence and counterclaim struck out as ordered.