Three executives removed from High Court case over alleged trade secrets
High Court reporters
The High Court has set aside the defendants' joinder of three executives at an HR software company in a lawsuit claiming it used an Irish "spy" to steal trade secrets from a rival firm.
Mr Justice Mark Sanfey said an application to set aside the joining of the three Deel Inc executives was well founded and he would make the order.
The case arose when the rival, People Centre Inc, trading as Rippling Ireland Ltd, issued High Court proceedings last year, claiming that one of its Dublin-based executives, Keith O’Brien, was induced by US-headquartered Deel to disclose sensitive company information.
San Francisco-headquartered Rippling later had Deel Inc chief executive Alex Bouaziz, its head of legal Andrea David Mieli, and associate legal director Asif Malik joined as defendants in the case.
The three then sought the setting aside of the "joinder order" which was made on an ex parte (one side only represented) basis.
Mr Bouaziz and Mr Mieli also sought orders setting aside service of certain papers on them and the dismissal/strike out of the claims made against them by Rippling for want of jurisdiction. Mr Malik also sought an order in relation to the service of papers on him outside the jurisdiction.
In August last year, Rippling filed a notice of discontinuance of its proceedings against Mr O'Brien, leaving only the Deel corporate and individual defendants. Rippling and Mr O'Brien had in the meantime come to a cooperation agreement.
Delaware-based Deel Inc accepted jurisdiction.
The individual Deel executives argued that the joining of them as defendants was done to enable Rippling to pursue new causes of action against them.
It was also argued their presence before the court could not be necessary in order to enable the court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon the matter because, when the joinder order was made, all causes of action between Rippling and Mr O'Brien had been definitively settled when the cooperation agreement was concluded on March 27, 2025.
Rippling opposed the setting aside of the joining order. It argued, among other things, it was entirely artificial for the individual Deel defendants to suggest that the settlement with Mr O'Brien could mean that the issues involved had either fallen away or ought to have been brought in entirely separate proceedings.
In a judgment on Friday, Mr Justice Sanfey said that at the point when the individual Deel defendants were joined, there were in fact "no questions involved in the cause or matter” between Rippling and Mr O'Brien.
This meant that the joining of the individual defendants could not be said to be necessary to enable the court to adjudicate and settle such questions, he said.
In a second judgment on an application by Deel Inc to strike out parts of an amended statement of claim served on it, the judge agreed to strike out one paragraph of the claim but declined to strike out two other paragraphs.
He also gave a third judgment on an application by Deel Inc directing Rippling to produce to it for inspection a copy of a termination agreement between Rippling and Mr O'Brien in March, 2025.
The judge said the balance between the possible materiality of the termination agreement and the degree of confidentiality attaching to it was best served by a proposal made by Rippling.
Under the proposal, Rippling agreed to release the termination agreement to a "confidentiality ring" of Deel lawyers on the basis of an undertaking that it would not be disclosed to Deel itself or other parties and could only be used for the purpose of the High Court proceedings.
This order was one which fits the particular circumstances of the case and respects the interests of the parties, the judge said.
