Norwich Pharmacal order

Last updated

A Norwich Pharmacal order is a court order for the disclosure of documents or information that is available in the United Kingdom, Ireland, Australia, and Canada. [1] [2] It is granted against a third party which has been mixed up in wrongdoing, forcing the disclosure of documents or information. By identifying individuals the documents and information sought are disclosed in order to assist the applicant for such an order in bringing legal proceedings against individuals who are believed to have wronged the applicant.

Contents

A Norwich Pharmacal order was first granted in 1974 by the House of Lords in Norwich Pharmacal Co. v Customs and Excise Commissioners , [3] a case concerning the alleged violation of a patent by unknown importers of the chemical subject to the patent. While first developed in relation to intellectual property, Norwich Pharmacal orders are now granted in relation to other torts, including defamation, and breach of contract, as well as alleged criminal offences. More recently Norwich Pharmacal orders are used against Internet hosting services and Internet service providers to identify users which have allegedly engaged in wrongdoing. [4]

In 2011, it was proposed that Norwich Pharmacal orders should not be granted by the UK courts where disclosure of the material in question would cause damage to the public interest. [5] This was implemented in the Justice and Security Act 2013. [6]

Principles of the Norwich Pharmacal jurisdiction

In Norwich Pharmacal Co. v Customs and Excise Commissioners , the House of Lords held that where a third party has information relating to unlawful conduct, a court could compel them to assist the person suffering damage by giving them that information. [7] The judgment is based on the 19th century procedure known as the "bill of discovery" and the case was brought by Norwich Pharmacal Co., the owner of the patent for a chemical. Norwich knew that its patent was infringed, because the chemical was imported into the UK, but it was unable to identify the alleged wrongdoer. It brought proceedings against HM Customs and Excise to force the Commissioners to disclose the names of the importers, which were the "Intended Defendants". [8]

Norwich Pharmacal orders are typically sought when legal proceedings for alleged wrongdoing cannot be brought because the identity of the wrongdoer is not known. Parties which believe they have been wronged will apply for a Norwich Pharmacal order to the court against third parties who can identify the wrongdoer, because they unwittingly facilitate the wrongdoing. [8] In the judgement granting the first Norwich Pharmacal order Lord Reid summarised the principle of the Norwich Pharmacal jurisdiction as follows:

... that if through no fault of his own a person gets mixed up in the tortious acts of others so as to facilitate their wrongdoing he may incur no personal liability but he comes under a duty to assist the person who has been wronged by giving him full information and disclosing the identity of the wrongdoers. [8]

An application for a Norwich Pharmacal order must be commenced against the facilitator by issuing a claim form. In the case of alleged tort an interim application must be made to a master in the Queen's Bench Division or the Chancery Division in the High Court of Justice. [9] The Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) 31.17 outline the procedures of the Norwich Pharmacal jurisdiction in England and Wales. [10] Norwich Pharmacal orders are not restricted to cases where such an order is a last resort – it is "intended to be a ... flexible remedy." [11]

The nature of the relief has been summarised thus: [12]

  1. Norwich-type relief has been granted in varied situations:
    1. where the information sought is necessary to identify wrongdoers;
    2. to find and preserve evidence that may substantiate or support an action against either known or unknown wrongdoers, or even determine whether an action exists; and
    3. to trace and preserve assets.
  2. The court will consider the following factors on an application for Norwich relief:
    1. Whether the applicant has provided evidence sufficient to raise a valid, bona fide or reasonable claim;
    2. Whether the applicant has established a relationship with the third party from whom the information is sought such that it establishes that the third party is somehow involved in the acts complained of;
    3. Whether the third party is the only practicable source of the information available;
    4. Whether the third party can be indemnified for costs to which the third party may be exposed because of the disclosure, some refer to the associated expenses of complying with the orders, while others speak of damages; and
    5. Whether the interests of justice favour the obtaining of the disclosure.

Developments in case law

YearCaseDescription
1978Loose v Williamson [13] It was established that in urgent cases, where delay could cause substantial and irreparable harm, an application for a Norwich Pharmacal order can be made without notice.
1980SmithKline and French Laboratories Ltd v R.D. Harbottle (Mercantile) Ltd [14] It was first established that because the order is made against an innocent third party, the applicant should normally be required to pay the innocent third party's costs, which the applicant may later recover from the wrongdoer or Intended Defendants. [9]
1981British Steel Corp. v Granada Television [15] The House of Lords established the principle that Norwich Pharmacal orders should only be granted where the applicant intends to seek redress by court proceedings or otherwise. It upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal that journalists can, according to the law, be forced to disclose their news sources. The decision prompted the passage of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, which allows courts to refuse disclosure orders where it could not be established that disclosure is "necessary in the interest of justice or national security or for the prevention of disorder or crime". [16] This has been used in subsequent applications for Norwich Pharmacal orders to afford general protection for a journalist's sources. [17] [18]
2001 Totalise v Motley Fool [19] In one of the first Norwich orders against an online chat room operator, the investment advice company Motley Fool was compelled to identify a user who had posted allegedly libellous comments about the ISP Totalise, thus establishing the applicability of the jurisdiction to alleged offences such as libel and copyright infringement. The case reaffirmed the principle established in SmithKline that the applicant pays the third party's cost, even where the third party actively contests the order, because it is for the applicant to prove to the court that he or she is entitled to the disclosure order. Legitimate reasons for contesting an application include: genuine doubt that the person seeking the disclosure order is entitled to it, the legal position regarding obligations not to disclose data (for example under the Data Protection Act 1998) is not clear, and that the disclosure of the information sought might infringe a legitimate interest of another. [20] [21]
2008Smith v ADVFN PLC [22] In a case concerning alleged libel on an Internet bulletin board, the Court of Appeal refused to grant a Norwich Pharmacal order against the bulletin board which would have forced the identification of individuals who were alleged to have libelled the applicant. The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court ruling that it would be disproportionate to grant the order and that the applicant had not established an arguable case of libel. [23] The Court of Appeal also provided guidance on the quality and quantity of the evidence needed to support a Norwich Pharmacal order. It was ruled that applicants for a Norwich Pharmacal order need to provide the court with a coherent body of evidence which allows for an allegation of wrongdoing to be properly assessed. [24]
2008Arab Satellite Communications Organisation v Saad Faqih & Anr [25] The High Court clarified that Norwich Pharmacal orders should not be granted for "fishing expeditions". In the case, Middle Eastern inter-governmental organisations applied for an order against a Saudi dissident for the identification of individuals that "may have been involved" in the broadcast of political material. The High Court refused to grant an order which would compel a third party to make a judgement about who "may have" done something, and ruled that "Norwich Pharmacal does not give claimants a general licence to fish for information that will do not more than potentially assist them to identify a claim or a defendant". [26]
2008Applause Store Productions Ltd. v Raphael [27] This involved the grant of a Norwich Pharmacal order against Facebook, ordering the disclosure of registration details, email addresses and the IP addresses used by the respondent.
2009 G & G v Wikimedia Foundation Inc [28] This involved the grant of an order to disclose the IP addresses used by a Wikipedia editor who had added information to a Wikipedia article which the claimant said infringed her and her child's privacy rights.
2009Lockton Companies International v Persons Unknown [29] This involved the request for an order against Google to disclose subscriber details and IP addresses to identify the sender of anonymous defamatory emails.

See also

Related Research Articles

In English and English-derived legal systems, an Anton Piller order is a court order that provides the right to search premises and seize evidence without prior warning. This is intended to prevent the destruction of relevant evidence, particularly in cases of alleged trademark, copyright or patent infringements.

Sir Peter Winston Smith, abbreviated to Peter Smith J in judgements, is a former High Court judge who sat in the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice in England and Wales from 5 April 2002 to 27 October 2017. He was the subject of comment and investigation in relation to his judicial behaviour in various circumstances. He retired on 28 October 2017.

This is a list of legal terms relating to patents and patent law. A patent is not a right to practice or use the invention claimed therein, but a territorial right to exclude others from commercially exploiting the invention, granted to an inventor or their successor in rights in exchange to a public disclosure of the invention.

Richard Mawrey, KC is a barrister and Deputy High Court Judge in the United Kingdom. He is a bencher of Gray's Inn and a member of Henderson Chambers. In his role as a judge in election cases, he has repeatedly criticised the postal voting system in the United Kingdom.

Asset freezing is a form of interim or interlocutory injunction which prevents a defendant to an action from dealing with or dissipating its assets so as to frustrate a potential judgment. It is widely recognised in other common law jurisdictions and such orders can be made to have world-wide effect. It is variously construed as part of a court's inherent jurisdiction to restrain breaches of its process.

This article concerns the legal mechanisms by way of which a decision of an England and Wales magistrates' court may be challenged. There are four mechanisms under which a decision of a magistrates' court may be challenged:

Constructive trusts in English law are a form of trust created by the English law courts primarily where the defendant has dealt with property in an "unconscionable manner"—but also in other circumstances. The property is held in "constructive trust" for the harmed party, obliging the defendant to look after it. The main factors that lead to a constructive trust are unconscionable dealings with property, profits from unlawful acts, and unauthorised profits by a fiduciary. Where the owner of a property deals with it in a way that denies or impedes the rights of some other person over that property, the courts may order that owner to hold it in constructive trust. Where someone profits from unlawful acts, such as murder, fraud, or bribery, these profits may also be held in constructive trust. The most common of these is bribery, which requires that the person be in a fiduciary office. Certain offices, such as those of trustee and company director, are always fiduciary offices. Courts may recognise others where the circumstances demand it. Where someone in a fiduciary office makes profits from their duties without the authorisation of that office's beneficiaries, a constructive trust may be imposed on those profits; there is a defence where the beneficiaries have authorised such profits. The justification here is that a person in such an office must avoid conflicts of interest, and be held to account should he fail to do so.

<i>Norwich Pharmacal Co v Customs and Excise Comrs</i> 1974 English court case

Norwich Pharmacal Co. & Others v Customs and Excise Commissioners [1974] AC 133 was a case involving the owner and exclusive licensee of a patent, which was infringed by unknown importers of the chemical into the United Kingdom. Norwich Pharmacal Co brought proceedings against the Excise Commissioners to force the disclosure of information which would identify the importer of the chemical, and therefore those who infringed the patent. The House of Lords held that where a third party had information relating to unlawful conduct, a court could compel them to assist the person suffering damage by giving them that information. The case established the Norwich Pharmacal jurisdiction and disclosure orders against third parties are now known as Norwich Pharmacal orders in the UK.

<i>Wrotham Park Estate Co Ltd v Parkside Homes Ltd</i> English contract law case on remedies

Wrotham Park Estate Co Ltd v Parkside Homes Ltd [1974] 1 WLR 798 is an English land law and English contract law case, concerning the measure and availability of damages for breach of negative covenant in circumstances where the court has confirmed that a covenant is legally enforceable and refused, as unconscionable, to issue an order for specific performance or an injunction.

<i>NEJ v Wood</i>

NEJ v BDZ (Helen Wood) ([2011] EWHC 1972 (QB) is a 2011 High Court case involving issues of privacy in English law.

<i>R (British Sky Broadcasting Ltd) v Comr of Police of the Metropolis</i>

R v Central Criminal Court[2014] UKSC 17 was a 2014 judgment of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. The court held that as inter partes proceedings created a lis between the parties, equal treatment meant that ex parte evidence in general could not be adduced.

<i>FHR European Ventures LLP v Cedar Capital Partners LLC</i> UK legal case

FHR European Ventures LLP v Cedar Capital Partners LLC[2014] UKSC 45 is a landmark decision of the United Kingdom Supreme Court which holds that a bribe or secret commission accepted by an agent is held on trust for his principal. In so ruling, the Court partially overruled Sinclair Investments (UK) Ltd v Versailles Trade Finance Ltd in favour of The Attorney General for Hong Kong v Reid (UKPC), a ruling from the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on appeal from New Zealand.

<i>Erlam v Rahman</i>

Erlam and others v Rahman and another [2015] EWHC 1215 (QB) is an English election court case challenging the 2014 election of Lutfur Rahman as the Mayor of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets. On 23 April 2015, Election Commissioner Richard Mawrey voided Rahman's election under the Representation of the People Act 1983 on the grounds of corrupt and illegal practices by him and his agents, and general corruption so extensively prevailing so to reasonably supposed to have affected the election. Rahman's official election agent Alibor Choudhury was ordered to vacate his own office of councillor in the ward of Stepney Green for being guilty of corrupt and illegal practices.

Provisional liquidation is a process which exists as part of the corporate insolvency laws of a number of common law jurisdictions whereby after the lodging of a petition for the winding-up of a company by the court, but before the court hears and determines the petition, the court may appoint a liquidator on a "provisional" basis. Unlike a conventional liquidator, a provisional liquidator does not assess claims against the company or try to distribute the company's assets to creditors, as the power to realise the assets comes after the court orders a liquidation.

Pyrrho Investments Limited v MWB Property Limited [2016] EWHC 256 (Ch) is the first British case to consider the use of ‘predictive coding’ during electronic discovery (e-discovery) process of document disclosure. The High Court found that ‘predictive coding’ was permissible when use of such technology was proportionate in terms of cost, though needs to be considered on a case-by-case basis.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Alfie Evans case</span> 2018 UK legal case

Alfie James Evans, was an infant boy from Liverpool with an undiagnosed neurodegenerative disorder, later revealed to be GABA-transaminase deficiency. The medical team and the child's parents disagreed about whether to maintain his life support or to withdraw it, resulting in a legal battle. Alder Hey Children's NHS Foundation Trust sought a declaration that continued mechanical ventilation was "unkind and inhumane", and not in the child's best interests. Alfie's parents, Kate James and Thomas Evans, contested the application.

<i>Wansboro v DPP and anor</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Wansboro v DPP and anor, [2017] IESCDET 115 is an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that granting 'leapfrog' leave to appeal directly to the Supreme Court from the High Court under Art. 34.5.4 of the Constitution of Ireland may be appropriate where the (intermediate) Court of Appeal has already clearly taken a view on the issues raised by the applicant.

In public law, abrogation is the proposing away of a right, power or value, by a public body in delegating power or failing to carry out a responsibility or duty. The abrogation of such a responsibility or duty, unless required by primary legislation would amount to an unconstitutional delegation of power to a foreign government or other sovereign power.

<i>Thompson v Arnold</i> Legal case concerning damages already awarded where death ensued

Thompson & Ors v Arnold[2007] EWHC 1875 (QB), was a law on damages case where the existing case law reaffirmed that damages awarded for a claim for personal injury were deemed to have already been awarded, even if death ensued as a consequence of personal injury. Where a claimant had settled their damages claim, or pursued it to trial, their dependants would have no right of action under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 if the injury later proved fatal. Langstaff J. held that Read v Great Eastern Railway had been correctly decided as a matter of statutory construction and neither Article 6 nor Article 8 of the ECHR had been infringed. The claim was dismissed.

References

  1. ↑ "A Rare Example of Norwich Pharmacal Relief in Ireland". www.mccannfitzgerald.com. Retrieved 2020-06-07.
  2. ↑ "Norwich Orders in Canada: A Tool for Twenty-First Century Litigation" (PDF). WeirFoulds LLP. Retrieved 8 August 2024.
  3. ↑ Norwich Pharmacal Company & Ors v Customs And Excise [1973] UKHL 6 , [1974] AC 133(26 June 1973)
  4. ↑ Smith 2007, p. 441.
  5. ↑ Justice and Security Green Paper (Cm 8194) (PDF). HMSO. 2011. ISBN   9780101819428 . Retrieved 20 June 2012.
  6. ↑ "Justice and Security Act 2013", legislation.gov.uk , The National Archives, 2013 c. 18
  7. ↑ "Norwich Pharmacal Orders". Gillhams LLP. Retrieved 30 September 2010.
  8. 1 2 3 Sime 2007, p. 381.
  9. 1 2 Sime 2007, p. 384.
  10. ↑ Bellamy 2009, p. 2.
  11. ↑ Bellamy 2009, p. 4.
  12. ↑ Alberta Treasury Branches v. Leahy, 2000 ABQB 575 at par. 106, 270 AR 1(18 August 2000), Court of Queen's Bench (Alberta,Canada), endorsed in GEA Group AG v. Flex-N-Gate Corporation, 2009 ONCA 619 at par. 50–51, 62, 96 OR (3d) 481(21 August 2009), Court of Appeal (Ontario,Canada)
  13. ↑ Loose v Williamson, [1978] 1 WLR 639
  14. ↑ SmithKline and French Laboratories Ltd v R.D. Harbottle (Mercantile) Ltd, [1980] RPC 363
  15. ↑ British Steel Corp. v Granada Television, [1981]AC1096 (HL).
  16. ↑ s. 10, "Contempt of Court Act 1981", legislation.gov.uk , The National Archives, 1981 c. 49
  17. ↑ Bellamy 2009, p. 14.
  18. ↑ Sime 2007, p. 382.
  19. ↑ Totalise Plc v The Motley Fool Ltd & Anor [2013] EWHC 706(QB) , [2001] EMLR 29(19 February 2001)
  20. ↑ Bellamy 2009, p. 8.
  21. ↑ "Totalise v Motley Fool". Computer Law Reports. Out-Law.com. Retrieved 26 August 2012.
  22. ↑ Smith v ADVFN Plc & Ors [2008] EWCA Civ 518 (15 April 2008)
  23. ↑ "Bulletin board postings more likely slander than libel, says High Court". Out-Law.com. 7 August 2008. Retrieved 12 August 2012.
  24. ↑ "No Norwich Pharmacal order in absence of organised body of data". Legal updates. Practical Law Company. 21 May 2008. Retrieved 12 August 2012.
  25. ↑ Arab Satellite Communications Organisation v Al Faqih & Anor [2008] EWHC 2568(QB) (14 October 2008)
  26. ↑ Bellamy 2009, p. 7.
  27. ↑ Applause Store Productions Ltd. & Anor v Raphael [2008] EWHC 1781(QB) , [2008] Info TLR 318(24 July 2008)
  28. ↑ G & G v Wikimedia Foundation Inc [2009] EWHC 3148(QB) , [2010] EMLR 14(2 December 2009)
  29. ↑ Lockton Companies International & Ors v Persons Unknown & Anor [2009] EWHC 3423(QB) (23 November 2009)

Sources

Further reading

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.