THE HIGH Court yesterday granted an interim relief restraining Independent News Media from acting further on its decision to terminate the employment of its director of corporate affairs and content development, Karl Brophy, on May 8th.

Mr Brophy also got an order restraining INM and its “servants or agents” from releasing, disseminating or divulging any confidential information in relation to his employment and its termination.

The order is in place until next Tuesday when the matter returns to court and applies to parties outside the State with knowledge of the order, Mr Justice Daniel Herbert said.

The judge also ordered that INM and those acting on its behalf should preserve all records, documents and electronic communications relating to the matter.

Oisín Quinn SC, for Mr Brophy, told the judge his client had been “put in a position where the largest shareholder [Denis O’Brien] is trying to oust him and to rub salt into the wounds”.

Mr Brophy was appointed to his position in January 2011, having been “head-hunted” by former INM chief executive Gavin O’Reilly from PR consultancy Hume Brophy, where he was a partner.

Following the departure of Mr O’Reilly last month, new chief executive Vincent Crowley met Mr Brophy on April 27th and told him “there was a new regime in place and his employment was to be terminated”. Mr Brophy was told by Mr Crowley that his role was no longer necessary.

“I was seen as being too close to the former CEO, Gavin O’Reilly,” Mr Brophy’s affidavit states.

Mr Brophy said he was told by Mr Crowley that his continued employment would be seen as “problematic” by other directors and their shareholders. He took this to be a reference to Mr O’Brien and his two nominee directors, Paul Connolly and Lucy Gaffney.

Mr Brophy was told that he had “gone a bit too far” in the recent coverage by INM newspapers concerning Mr O’Brien, who now owns 29.9 per cent of INM.

In addition, Mr Crowley told him that he had not done enough to “recast the digital offerings” of INM, although Mr Crowley accepted that this had been a difficult task.

Mr Crowley also added a personal caveat that he accepted Mr Brophy was “only following orders”, counsel said.

Mr Brophy’s affidavit states that these “so-called reasons and criticisms . . . are unfair and unfounded” and that he was never given the opportunity to respond in any meaningful way to them.

On May 9th, Mr Brophy received a letter formally terminating his employment. That same day, his email and electronic services were switched off and his office shut.

His personal assistant, Mandy Scott, had also been let go after 24 years with the company, counsel said.

Mr Brophy was informed that his contract provided for a notice period of 364 days, during which he would not be expected to attend work.

Mr Brophy argues that the terms of his appointment included a two-year severance, which had been confirmed to him in a recent email from Mr O’Reilly.

Mr Brophy said that there had been a “concerted effort to brief journalists with false and damaging information” about him.