Overview of the Case
In a High Court proceeding, Dublin city councillor Gavin Pepper, an Independent elected representative for the Ballymun/Finglas area, undertook not to attend or film outside the homes or premises of staff connected to Pepper Finance Corporation, a credit-servicing and asset-management company. The case centers on Pepper’s social media activity outside the west Dublin home of Pepper Finance’s managing director, Ian Wigglesworth, which Pepper had previously filmed for online posts.
The matter underscores tensions between public figures’ use of social media and companies’ attempts to protect staff and private residences from potentially sensitive or intimidating publicity. Pepper has asserted that much of what was stated in an affidavit in the case is not true, and he indicated in court that he was willing to offer undertakings to resolve the dispute, though he remained unhappy with certain statements made in the documents.
Hearing Progress and Legal Submissions
During the hearing, Pepper Finance’s counsel, Brian Conroy SC, told the court that Pepper had agreed to an order prohibiting filming Pepper Finance staff. However, the firm’s legal team disputed some wording that Pepper argued could leave him open to misinterpretation or future breaches.
One focal point was Pepper’s employment status at the time of filming. Pepper disclosed that he works as a taxi driver, and he expressed concerns that he or others might be unwittingly in breach if pickups or drop-offs occurred with Pepper Finance employees in the vicinity. While Pepper disclaimed any intention to instruct others to carry out filming, counsel noted that Pepper could not be held responsible for unknown third parties who might undertake similar actions.
Judge’s Intervention and Wording Changes
Mr Justice Brian Cregan suggested addressing these concerns by inserting the phrase “otherwise than in the course of his employment” into the order, to differentiate incidental encounters from conduct connected to Pepper’s professional duties. The judge also considered the use of the terms “servants or agents” throughout the prohibition. Pepper Finance argued that while the broader terminology aimed to prevent circumvention, it could be overly broad given Pepper’s status as a self-employed taxi driver with no staff of his own.
The judge indicated that removing “servants or agents” from the order would not prejudice Pepper Finance and would reduce the risk of misinterpretation. Pepper argued he did not intend to direct others to conduct filming, noting again that he has no employees or agents. Nonetheless, he acknowledged that if a repeat incident occurred, Pepper Finance could return to court to seek relief.
Current Status and Next Steps
The hearing proceeded with an agreement in principle to draft an updated order reflecting the court’s suggested changes. The new wording would prohibit filming Pepper Finance staff, but would avoid potentially burdensome or misleading phrases that could ensnare Pepper in unintended breaches. Counsel for Pepper Finance stated that the defendant’s acceptance of the provisional order should not be read as an admission of wrongdoing in relation to past actions. The court scheduled further discussions to resolve the remaining issues, including the matter of costs, which Pepper opposes.
Context and Implications
This case illustrates the balancing act between the public interest in accountability and individual rights to privacy and safety for staff at a financial services firm. It also highlights how court-ordered undertakings can evolve to address practical concerns of public figures who operate in occupations with unpredictable interactions with the public, such as taxi driving. If the final order is issued with the judge’s suggested amendments, it could set a precedent for similar disputes involving media activity near the residences or workplaces of corporate staff.
What to Watch For
A key development will be the exact language of the final order, and whether Pepper Finance will pursue any further applications or costs against Pepper following this week’s proceedings. As the matter remains subject to court approval, observers will be watching for the eventual formal order and any subsequent compliance or enforcement issues.
