Healthcare recruitment agency co-owner’s role with HSE is conflict of interest, business partner says

High Court Reporter

The co-owner of a healthcare recruitment agency has claimed in the High Court that her business partner’s employment with the Health Service Executive (HSE) is a conflict of interest and threatens the survival of the company.

AGS Healthcare Recruitment Ltd, with offices Corcullen House, Corcullen, Galway is owned jointly by Sharon Conlon and Geo Jose Aruvelickal – they own 50 per cent of the company’s shares each – and was founded in February 2021 to “address nursing recruitment challenges in Ireland”.

The HSE is AGS’s biggest customer, accounting for 90 per cent of the company’s business, according to court documents.

In a sworn statement to the court, Paul Conlon, Ms Conlon’s son and general manager at AGS, says that Mr Aruvelickal took a full-time role with the HSE in January 2024.

He alleges that Mr Aruvelickal’s HSE role and ongoing directorship at AGS places the company at risk of being excluded from future HSE contracts.

Mr Conlon alleges that the company has already lost work and income due to Mr Aruvelickal’s employment with the HSE.

“The action of the respondent is seriously jeopardising this relationship and good will and the loss of this customer would threaten the very survival of the company,” Mr Conlon says.

Ms Conlon and Mr Conlon, of Cartur Mór, Knocknacarra, Galway, are suing Mr Aruvelickal for alleged shareholder oppression. The allegations made against Mr Aruvelickal are denied.

This week, lawyers for the Conlons sought an order compelling Mr Aruvelickal to disclose to the plaintiffs the company’s banking access codes. Mr Conlon alleged that Mr Aruvelickal changed the access codes, blocking his ability to pay the company’s staff and bills.

Following the application, which was made with only the plaintiffs represented in court, Mr Justice Brian Cregan granted the order on an interim basis.

On Friday, Mr Justice Cregan was initially told by Con Crowley BL, for the plaintiffs, that his order had not been complied with. After the matter was adjourned for a short period, Hugh Byrne BL, for Mr Aruvelickal, said that the banking codes had been shared with the plaintiffs.

Mr Byrne said it was disputed that the plaintiffs had been blocked from accessing the company’s banking facility. He said he would be challenging the plaintiff’s case, that there were “inaccuracies” before the court and that he would be filing replying affidavits.
The case was adjourned to next month.