Developer Michael O’Flynn claims that three trusted former senior employees – including Patrick Cox, son of former MEP Pat Cox – all stole confidential and critical information belonging to the O’Flynn group.

We have claimed that the manipulation of a young personal assistant by former chief investment officer Patrick Cox, in what he called the theft of nearly 37,000 documents, was shocking and that Mr. Cox junior should have “really shame “.

Mr. O’Flynn, the group’s chief executive officer, was testifying in a High Court case in which a number of O’Flynn companies are suing former employees Mr. Cox, Liam Foley, Eoghan Kearney and four companies.

It is alleged that the defendants made more than 12.5 million euros in profit on a student housing project on Gardiner Street, Dublin at his company’s expense using this information. The defendants reject the allegations.

Mr. O’Flynn said Mr. Cox’s conduct was “the worst I have ever seen”. Mr Cox had asked for “bonuses and bonuses” and the group were happy to welcome him, he said.

“But the money he got was used to go up against us and it was amazing,” Mr. O’Flynn said.

Mr Cox then began to make false claims that O’Flynn withheld information from Nama, who had taken over the group’s € 1.8 billion in loans, on projects in Coventry and Birmingham in England.

It was, he said, an attempt to blackmail and deter the company from bringing legal action against him and his co-defendants. It was an attempt to damage his reputation, which he had taken a long time to gain.

“I don’t intend to lose him to a group like this,” he said.

Mr Cox could have visited Nama “if there had been something untoward” for the past three years, but had not done so, he said.

But Mr O’Flynn asked his lawyer to write to Nama to summarize these allegations which he said were completely untrue.

Mr O’Flynn said his differences with Nama over politics were well known over the years, but that he always operated “straight down the line” when dealing with Nama.

It has been “the toughest eight years in business and we had to struggle to survive” drawing on the experience of the company, Mr. O’Flynn said. “But we did not act illegally or deprive Nama of money.”

The case continues.