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] 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] 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] Norwich Pharmacal orders should only be granted where the applicant intends to seek redress by court proceedings or otherwise. Journalists can, following this ruling, 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] Norwich Pharmacal orders are applicable to alleged torts such as libel and copyright infringement. In one of the first such 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. The case reaffirmed the principle established in SmithKline that the applicant pays the third party's costs, 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 2018) 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] 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. The Court of Appeal refused to grant a Norwich Pharmacal order against an Internet 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. [24]
2008Arab Satellite Communications Organisation v Saad Faqih & Anr [25] Norwich Pharmacal orders should not be granted for "fishing expeditions". In this 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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Legitimate expectation</span> Legal doctrine regarding provided rights and services

The doctrine of legitimate expectation was first developed in English law as a ground of judicial review in administrative law to protect a procedural or substantive interest when a public authority rescinds from a representation made to a person. It is based on the principles of natural justice and fairness, and seeks to prevent authorities from abusing power.

A patent application is a request pending at a patent office for the grant of a patent for an invention described in the patent specification and a set of one or more claims stated in a formal document, including necessary official forms and related correspondence. It is the combination of the document and its processing within the administrative and legal framework of the patent office.

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.

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:

In England and Wales, the principle of legal professional privilege has long been recognised by the common law. It is seen as a fundamental principle of justice, and grants a protection from disclosing evidence. It is a right that attaches to the client and so may only be waived by the client.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Serious Crime Act 2007</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Serious Crime Act 2007 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that makes several radical changes to English criminal law. In particular, it creates a new scheme of serious crime prevention orders to frustrate crime in England and Wales and in Northern Ireland, replaces the common law crime of incitement with a statutory offence of encouraging or assisting crime, makes provision as to disclosure and information sharing in order to prevent fraud, and abolishes the Assets Recovery Agency creating a new regime for the recovery of the proceeds of crime.

Vicarious liability in English law is a doctrine of English tort law that imposes strict liability on employers for the wrongdoings of their employees. Generally, an employer will be held liable for any tort committed while an employee is conducting their duties. This liability has expanded in recent years following the decision in Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd to better cover intentional torts, such as sexual assault and deceit. Historically, it was held that most intentional wrongdoings were not in the course of ordinary employment, but recent case law suggests that where an action is closely connected with an employee's duties, an employer can be found vicariously liable. The leading case is now the Supreme Court decision in Catholic Child Welfare Society v Institute of the Brothers of the Christian Schools, which emphasised the concept of "enterprise risk".

<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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Remedies in Singapore administrative law</span> Types of legal orders applicable on Singapore Governments executive branch

The remedies available in Singapore administrative law are the prerogative orders – the mandatory order, prohibiting order (prohibition), quashing order (certiorari), and order for review of detention – and the declaration, a form of equitable remedy. In Singapore, administrative law is the branch of law that enables a person to challenge an exercise of power by the executive branch of the Government. The challenge is carried out by applying to the High Court for judicial review. The Court's power to review a law or an official act of a government official is part of its supervisory jurisdiction, and at its fullest may involve quashing an action or decision and ordering that it be redone or remade.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Administrative law in Singapore</span> Law of Singapores government agencies

Administrative law in Singapore is a branch of public law that is concerned with the control of governmental powers as exercised through its various administrative agencies. Administrative law requires administrators – ministers, civil servants and public authorities – to act fairly, reasonably and in accordance with the law. Singapore administrative law is largely based on English administrative law, which the nation inherited at independence in 1965.

BMG Canada Inc. v. Doe, 2004 FC 488 aff'd 2005 FCA 193, is an important Canadian copyright law, file-sharing, and privacy case, where both the Federal Court of Canada and the Federal Court of Appeal refused to allow the Canadian Recording Industry Association (CRIA) and several major record labels to obtain the subscriber information of Internet service provider (ISP) customers alleged to have been infringing copyright.

<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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Threshold issues in Singapore administrative law</span> Legal requirements to be satisfied to bring cases to the High Court

Threshold issues are legal requirements in Singapore administrative law that must be satisfied by applicants before their claims for judicial review of acts or decisions of public authorities can be dealt with by the High Court. These include showing that they have standing to bring cases, and that the matters are amenable to judicial review and justiciable by the Court.

Misuse of private information is a new common law tort that English courts recognised in Campbell v MGN Ltd. Arising as a branch of the law relating to breach of confidence, it has been reinforced by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, supplemented by s. 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, which obliges public institutions not to act inconsistently with Convention rights.

<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>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.

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. ↑ "Contempt of Court Act 1981: Section 10", legislation.gov.uk , The National Archives, 1981 c. 49 (s. 10)
  17. ↑ Bellamy 2009, p. 14.
  18. ↑ Sime 2007, p. 382.
  19. ↑ Totalise plc v The Motley Fool Ltd & another [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 & others [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 & another [2008] EWHC 2568(QB) (14 October 2008)
  26. ↑ Bellamy 2009, p. 7.
  27. ↑ Applause Store Productions Ltd. & another 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 & others v Persons Unknown & another [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.