333:, 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
46:. 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.
351:
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".
272:, 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". This has been used in subsequent applications for Norwich Pharmacal orders to afford general protection for a journalist's sources.
337:. 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.
133:...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.
350:
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
267:
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
124:
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
311:
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
112:
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. The judgement is based on the 19th century procedure known as the "bill of discovery" and the case was brought by
253:
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.
157:(CPR) 31.17 outline the procedures of the Norwich Pharmacal jurisdiction in England and Wales. Norwich Pharmacal orders are not restricted to cases where such an order is a last resort – it is "intended to be a... flexible remedy."
205:(iv) 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
391:
This involved the grant of an order to disclose the IP addresses used by a
Knowledge (XXG) editor who had added information to a Knowledge (XXG) article which the claimant said infringed her and her child's privacy rights.
117:, 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
199:(ii) 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;
1047:
492:
104:
51:
240:
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.
175:(ii) 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
86:
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
1054:
748:
568:
440:
1078:
670:
385:
137:
An application for a
Norwich Pharmacal order must be commenced against the facilitator by issuing a claim form. In the case of alleged
312:
seeking the disclosure order is entitled to it, the legal position regarding obligations not to disclose data (for example under the
1029:
1008:
535:
1102:
125:
the wrongdoer, because they unwittingly facilitate the wrongdoing. In the judgement granting the first
Norwich Pharmacal order
91:
682:
986:
464:
1097:
316:) is not clear, and that the disclosure of the information sought might infringe a legitimate interest of another.
269:
80:
142:
76:
313:
330:
114:
786:
678:
666:
304:
281:
126:
121:
to force the Commissioners to disclose the names of the importers, which were the "Intended Defendants".
880:
154:
150:
118:
60:
409:
to disclose subscriber details and IP addresses to identify the sender of anonymous defamatory emails.
522:
743:
563:
421:
72:
59:
by unknown importers of the chemical subject to the patent. While first developed in relation to
75:, as well as alleged criminal offences. More recently Norwich Pharmacal orders are used against
1074:
1025:
1004:
531:
146:
1066:
1019:
295:
was compelled to identify a user who had posted allegedly libellous comments about the ISP
202:(iii) Whether the third party is the only practicable source of the information available;
87:
969:
953:
937:
909:
845:
34:
is a court order for the disclosure of documents or information that is available in the
791:
109:
35:
17:
299:, thus establishing the applicability of the jurisdiction to alleged offences such as
1091:
497:
292:
288:
724:
373:
296:
68:
988:
Professional Liability Claims: Norwich Pharmacal Proceedings and Human Rights
582:
190:(i) Whether the applicant has provided evidence sufficient to raise a valid,
49:
A Norwich Pharmacal order was first granted in 1974 by the House of Lords in
738:
558:
208:(v) Whether the interests of justice favour the obtaining of the disclosure.
192:
129:
summarised the principle of the Norwich Pharmacal jurisdiction as follows:
859:"Bulletin board postings more likely slander than libel, says High Court"
365:
994:. Professional Negligence Lawyers’ Association. ThirtyNine Essex Street.
707:
SmithKline and French Laboratories Ltd v R.D. Harbottle (Mercantile) Ltd
249:
SmithKline and French Laboratories Ltd v R.D. Harbottle (Mercantile) Ltd
182:
b. The court will consider the following factors on an application for
39:
966:
Lockton Companies International & Ors v Persons Unknown & Anor
465:"Norwich Orders in Canada: A Tool for Twenty-First Century Litigation"
406:
172:(i) where the information sought is necessary to identify wrongdoers;
56:
43:
858:
816:
369:
334:
300:
64:
881:"No Norwich Pharmacal order in absence of organised body of data"
346:
Arab Satellite Communications Organisation v Saad Faqih & Anr
906:
Arab Satellite Communications Organisation v Al Faqih & Anor
138:
63:, Norwich Pharmacal orders are now granted in relation to other
83:
to identify users which have allegedly engaged in wrongdoing.
1073:(4th ed.). London: Sweet & Maxwell. pp. 63–97.
681: at par. 50–51, 62, 96 OR (3d) 481 (21 August 2009),
364:
This involved the grant of a Norwich Pharmacal order against
493:
Norwich Pharmacal Company & Ors v Customs And Excise
105:
Norwich Pharmacal Co. v Customs and Excise Commissioners
52:
Norwich Pharmacal Co. v Customs and Excise Commissioners
441:"A Rare Example of Norwich Pharmacal Relief in Ireland"
141:
an interim application must be made to a master in the
1067:"3: Norwich Pharmacal and other pre-action disclosure"
1046:
Dougherty, Charles; Saunderson, Emily (Spring 2014).
622:
620:
607:
605:
603:
934:
Applause Store Productions Ltd. & Anor v Raphael
168:-type relief has been granted in varied situations:
368:, ordering the disclosure of registration details,
307:. The case reaffirmed the principle established in
160:The nature of the relief has been summarised thus:
268:sources. The decision prompted the passage of the
669: at par. 106, 270 AR 1 (18 August 2000),
401:Lockton Companies International v Persons Unknown
98:Principles of the Norwich Pharmacal jurisdiction
1048:"A Practical Guide to Norwich Pharmacal Orders"
405:This involved the request for an order against
162:
131:
55:, a case concerning the alleged violation of a
287:In one of the first Norwich orders against an
787:Totalise Plc v The Motley Fool Ltd & Anor
291:room operator, the investment advice company
8:
524:Justice and Security Green Paper (Cm 8194)
360:Applause Store Productions Ltd. v Raphael
329:In a case concerning alleged libel on an
1065:Matthews, Paul; Malek, Hodge M. (2012).
720:British Steel Corp. v Granada Television
263:British Steel Corp. v Granada Television
217:
1001:A Practical Approach to Civil Procedure
921:
803:
761:
675:GEA Group AG v. Flex-N-Gate Corporation
650:
638:
432:
1024:(4th ed.). Sweet & Maxwell.
509:
7:
950:G & G v Wikimedia Foundation Inc
887:. Practical Law Company. 21 May 2008
773:
626:
611:
386:G & G v Wikimedia Foundation Inc
673:(Alberta, Canada), endorsed in
178:(iii) to trace and preserve assets.
1053:. 2 Temple Gardens. Archived from
985:Bellamy, Jonathan (25 June 2009).
940:, Info TLR 318 (24 July 2008)
663:Alberta Treasury Branches v. Leahy
25:
970:[2009] EWHC 3423 (QB)
954:[2009] EWHC 3148 (QB)
938:[2008] EWHC 1781 (QB)
910:[2008] EWHC 2568 (QB)
794:, EMLR 29 (19 February 2001)
956:, EMLR 14 (2 December 2009)
792:[2013] EWHC 706 (QB)
559:"Justice and Security Act 2013"
725:[1981] AC 1096
90:. This was implemented in the
1:
92:Justice and Security Act 2013
861:. Out-Law.com. 7 August 2008
739:"Contempt of Court Act 1981"
500:, AC 133 (26 June 1973)
1021:Internet Law and regulation
1003:. Oxford University Press.
846:[2008] EWCA Civ 518
842:Smith v ADVFN Plc & Ors
223:
1119:
583:"Norwich Pharmacal Orders"
395:
379:
354:
340:
319:
275:
270:Contempt of Court Act 1981
257:
243:
230:
81:Internet service providers
77:Internet hosting services
27:UK court disclosure order
817:"Totalise v Motley Fool"
445:www.mccannfitzgerald.com
376:used by the respondent.
314:Data Protection Act 1998
214:Developments in case law
1103:English civil procedure
972: (23 November 2009)
331:Internet bulletin board
32:Norwich Pharmacal order
18:Norwich Pharmacal Order
1018:Smith, Graham (2007).
912: (14 October 2008)
671:Court of Queen's Bench
305:copyright infringement
282:Totalise v Motley Fool
211:
143:Queen's Bench Division
135:
999:Sime, Stuart (2007).
749:The National Archives
685:(Ontario, Canada)
569:The National Archives
498:[1973] UKHL 6
155:Civil Procedure Rules
151:High Court of Justice
119:HM Customs and Excise
115:Norwich Pharmacal Co.
61:intellectual property
848: (15 April 2008)
821:Computer Law Reports
196:or reasonable claim;
744:legislation.gov.uk
695:Loose v Williamson
564:legislation.gov.uk
422:Anton Piller order
372:addresses and the
236:Loose v Williamson
73:breach of contract
1098:Judicial remedies
413:
412:
325:Smith v ADVFN PLC
147:Chancery Division
16:(Redirected from
1110:
1084:
1080:978-0-41404779-2
1061:
1059:
1052:
1035:
1014:
995:
993:
973:
963:
957:
947:
941:
931:
925:
919:
913:
903:
897:
896:
894:
892:
877:
871:
870:
868:
866:
855:
849:
839:
833:
832:
830:
828:
813:
807:
801:
795:
783:
777:
771:
765:
759:
753:
752:
734:
728:
722:
716:
710:
704:
698:
692:
686:
660:
654:
648:
642:
636:
630:
624:
615:
609:
598:
597:
595:
593:
579:
573:
572:
555:
549:
548:
546:
544:
529:
519:
513:
507:
501:
489:
483:
482:
480:
478:
469:
461:
455:
454:
452:
451:
437:
218:
21:
1118:
1117:
1113:
1112:
1111:
1109:
1108:
1107:
1088:
1087:
1081:
1064:
1057:
1050:
1045:
1042:
1040:Further reading
1032:
1017:
1011:
998:
991:
984:
981:
976:
964:
960:
948:
944:
932:
928:
920:
916:
904:
900:
890:
888:
879:
878:
874:
864:
862:
857:
856:
852:
840:
836:
826:
824:
815:
814:
810:
802:
798:
784:
780:
772:
768:
760:
756:
737:
735:
731:
718:
717:
713:
705:
701:
693:
689:
683:Court of Appeal
661:
657:
649:
645:
637:
633:
625:
618:
610:
601:
591:
589:
581:
580:
576:
557:
556:
552:
542:
540:
538:
527:
521:
520:
516:
508:
504:
490:
486:
476:
474:
467:
463:
462:
458:
449:
447:
439:
438:
434:
430:
418:
216:
100:
88:public interest
28:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
1116:
1114:
1106:
1105:
1100:
1090:
1089:
1086:
1085:
1079:
1062:
1060:on 2015-07-14.
1041:
1038:
1037:
1036:
1030:
1015:
1009:
996:
980:
977:
975:
974:
958:
942:
926:
914:
898:
872:
850:
834:
808:
796:
778:
776:, p. 382.
766:
754:
729:
711:
699:
687:
655:
643:
631:
629:, p. 384.
616:
614:, p. 381.
599:
574:
550:
536:
530:. HMSO. 2011.
514:
512:, p. 441.
502:
484:
472:WeirFoulds LLP
456:
431:
429:
426:
425:
424:
417:
414:
411:
410:
403:
398:
394:
393:
389:
382:
378:
377:
362:
357:
353:
352:
348:
343:
339:
338:
327:
322:
318:
317:
285:
278:
274:
273:
265:
260:
256:
255:
251:
246:
242:
241:
238:
233:
229:
228:
225:
222:
215:
212:
210:
209:
206:
203:
200:
197:
180:
179:
176:
173:
110:House of Lords
99:
96:
36:United Kingdom
26:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1115:
1104:
1101:
1099:
1096:
1095:
1093:
1082:
1076:
1072:
1068:
1063:
1056:
1049:
1044:
1043:
1039:
1033:
1031:9780421909908
1027:
1023:
1022:
1016:
1012:
1010:9780199212330
1006:
1002:
997:
990:
989:
983:
982:
978:
971:
967:
962:
959:
955:
951:
946:
943:
939:
935:
930:
927:
923:
918:
915:
911:
907:
902:
899:
886:
885:Legal updates
882:
876:
873:
860:
854:
851:
847:
843:
838:
835:
823:. Out-Law.com
822:
818:
812:
809:
805:
800:
797:
793:
789:
788:
782:
779:
775:
770:
767:
764:, p. 14.
763:
758:
755:
750:
746:
745:
740:
733:
730:
726:
721:
715:
712:
708:
703:
700:
696:
691:
688:
684:
680:
679:2009 ONCA 619
676:
672:
668:
667:2000 ABQB 575
664:
659:
656:
652:
647:
644:
640:
635:
632:
628:
623:
621:
617:
613:
608:
606:
604:
600:
588:
584:
578:
575:
570:
566:
565:
560:
554:
551:
539:
537:9780101819428
533:
526:
525:
518:
515:
511:
506:
503:
499:
495:
494:
488:
485:
473:
466:
460:
457:
446:
442:
436:
433:
427:
423:
420:
419:
415:
408:
404:
402:
399:
396:
390:
388:
387:
383:
380:
375:
371:
367:
363:
361:
358:
355:
349:
347:
344:
341:
336:
332:
328:
326:
323:
320:
315:
310:
306:
302:
298:
294:
290:
286:
284:
283:
279:
276:
271:
266:
264:
261:
258:
252:
250:
247:
244:
239:
237:
234:
231:
226:
220:
219:
213:
207:
204:
201:
198:
195:
194:
189:
188:
187:
185:
177:
174:
171:
170:
169:
167:
161:
158:
156:
152:
148:
144:
140:
134:
130:
128:
122:
120:
116:
111:
107:
106:
97:
95:
93:
89:
84:
82:
78:
74:
70:
66:
62:
58:
54:
53:
47:
45:
41:
37:
33:
19:
1070:
1055:the original
1020:
1000:
987:
965:
961:
949:
945:
933:
929:
924:, p. 7.
922:Bellamy 2009
917:
905:
901:
889:. Retrieved
884:
875:
863:. Retrieved
853:
841:
837:
825:. Retrieved
820:
811:
806:, p. 8.
804:Bellamy 2009
799:
785:
781:
769:
762:Bellamy 2009
757:
751:, 1981 c. 49
742:
732:
719:
714:
706:
702:
697:, 1 WLR 639
694:
690:
674:
662:
658:
653:, p. 4.
651:Bellamy 2009
646:
641:, p. 2.
639:Bellamy 2009
634:
592:30 September
590:. Retrieved
587:Gillhams LLP
586:
577:
571:, 2013 c. 18
562:
553:
541:. Retrieved
523:
517:
505:
491:
487:
475:. Retrieved
471:
459:
448:. Retrieved
444:
435:
400:
384:
374:IP addresses
359:
345:
324:
308:
280:
262:
248:
235:
227:Description
191:
183:
181:
165:
163:
159:
136:
132:
123:
103:
101:
85:
67:, including
50:
48:
31:
29:
293:Motley Fool
289:online chat
1092:Categories
1071:Disclosure
727: (HL).
709:, RPC 363
510:Smith 2007
450:2020-06-07
428:References
309:SmithKline
69:defamation
891:12 August
865:12 August
827:26 August
774:Sime 2007
627:Sime 2007
612:Sime 2007
193:bona fide
127:Lord Reid
477:8 August
416:See also
366:Facebook
297:Totalise
186:relief:
979:Sources
736:s. 10,
677:,
665:,
543:20 June
184:Norwich
166:Norwich
149:in the
145:or the
40:Ireland
1077:
1028:
1007:
723:,
534:
407:Google
153:. The
108:, the
71:, and
57:patent
44:Canada
42:, and
1058:(PDF)
1051:(PDF)
992:(PDF)
968:
952:
936:
908:
844:
790:
528:(PDF)
496:
468:(PDF)
397:2009
381:2009
370:email
356:2008
342:2008
335:libel
321:2008
301:libel
277:2001
259:1981
245:1980
232:1978
224:Case
221:Year
65:torts
1075:ISBN
1026:ISBN
1005:ISBN
893:2012
867:2012
829:2012
594:2010
545:2012
532:ISBN
479:2024
303:and
139:tort
79:and
164:a.
102:In
1094::
1069:.
883:.
819:.
747:,
741:,
619:^
602:^
585:.
567:,
561:,
470:.
443:.
94:.
38:,
30:A
1083:.
1034:.
1013:.
895:.
869:.
831:.
596:.
547:.
481:.
453:.
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.