Firm's rival was set up thanks to 'wholesale departure' of staff, High Court told

Amtivo director Michael Brophy said some 231, or 82%, of client transfers away from Amtivo between April 2025 and June 2026 were to West Assured

The court heard that a former employee worked for Amtivo as an assessor and auditor which meant he had access to confidential information including in relation to client audit information, records and relationships. File picture

A company which provides international certification for many businesses has claimed in the High Court that a new rival has been built on the "wholesale departure" and "rapid migration" of former employees and contractors.

Amtivo (Ireland) Ltd and its parent, Amtivo Group Ltd, provides certification, including ISO (International Organisation for Standardization) certs in areas including quality management, health and safety, environmental management and information security.

The competitor, West Assured Solutions Ltd, of Loughrea, Co Galway, which was founded in September 2024 by three former Amtivo employees, provides a similar service.

On Wednesday, Mr Justice Brian Cregan granted Helen Callanan SC interim orders restraining one of the most recent departed employees, Martin Heduvan, of Ballynacargy, Mullingar, Co Westmeath, from disclosing or communicating any of Amtivo's confidential information to any competitor or third party and from using such information to solicit prospective clients to move away from Amtivo.

The judge said that when the case returns on Friday he would consider a further order restraining Mr Heduvan from engaging in any activity in competition with Amtivo in the Dublin area without prior consent of Amtivo. The application for the injunctions was made with only the Amtivo side represented (ex parte).

Amtivo has brought proceedings against West Assured and its three directors and shareholders, Catherine Howard, Cois na Ce, Kilrush, Co Clare, Edel Murphy, St Brendan's Road, Portumna, Co Galway, and Gerard Kelly, Coliemore Road, Dalkey, Co Dublin, all of whom are former employees of Amtivo.

It is also suing former employees and contractors, Kelly-Anne Heeney, Cedar Drive, Woodfarm Acres, Dublin 20, Kelly McGrath, Devenish Road, Kimmage, Dublin, Mark Dwyer, of Inch, Ennis, Co Clare and Martina McElvaney, of Drumbroughas North, Lisnaskea, Co Fermanagh.

The defendants deny the claims against them.

In an affidavit, Amtivo director Michael Brophy said it was his company's concern that West Assured's business had been built to a substantial extent on the "rapid migration" of Amtivo employees and contractors. Those employees had access to Amtivo's confidential information, he said. 

"West Assured has been constituted, in material part, by the wholesale departure of six senior former employees and two former contractors," he said. Six of those eight individuals had left within a short space of around 15 months, bringing with them their knowledge of Amtivo's client base, and pricing structures, among other things.

Some 231, or 82%, of client transfers away from Amtivo between April 2025 and June 2026 were to West Assured, he said. "It is not credible that a new entity would set up and coincidentally take 82% of clients who formed part of an unprecedented exodus from the plaintiff," he said.

Mr Brophy said that in relation to Mr Heduvan, he finished employment with Amtivo on January 9 last and by February the company became increasingly concerned about the movement of clients and certificates to West Assured.

He said Mr Heduvan worked for Amtivo as an assessor and auditor which meant he had access to confidential information including in relation to client audit information, records and relationships.

Amtivo sought undertakings from Mr Heduvan similar to what was sought in the injunction application, but he was not prepared to give undertakings in the form sought, Mr Brophy said. As a result, injunction proceedings were initiated against him.

Mr Heduvan's lawyers have denied in correspondence that he was in breach of contracts signed with Amtivo. A non-competition clause was extraordinarily broad and ambiguous and did not identify any proprietary interest, it has been argued.

The clause also made no reference to a non-solicitation clause and would not be upheld as binding by a court, the lawyers said.