Neil Levy

N – Norwich Pharmacal

20/5/20

CPOD SA v DE HOLANDA JUNIOR [2020] EWHC 1247 (Ch)

Reviews principles on which the court can make orders after proceedings have been started for early disclosure of information by a defendant. Applications for disclosure of bank statements and for an interim order for an account, were dismissed. There was no need for early disclosure before particulars of claim had been served, nor was it just and convenient to do so.

19/5/20

ZENITH INSURANCE PLC v LPS SOLICITORS LTD [2020] EWHC 1260 (QB)

Considers pre-action disclosure under CPR r 31.16, Norwich Pharmacal principles and CPR r 31.18. The applications were dismissed because the evidence failed to explain why documents disclosed in response to an earlier application were inadequate, and to address basic requirements for relief.

15/5/20

BURFORD CAPITAL LTD v LONDON STOCK EXCHANGE GROUP PLC [2020] EWHC 1183 (Comm)

Considers principles to be applied on an application for production of documents under the Norwich Pharmacal jurisdiction, against a person mixed up in the wrongdoing of others. Such applications must be limited to seeking disclosure of strictly necessary information [23]. There must be a good arguable case of wrongdoing [33]. It is not necessary for the applicant to intend to sue the wrongdoer [34]. There is some doubt whether there must be an underlying cause of action against the wrongdoer [35]. Justice must require the defendant to provide assistance to the claimant [42]. Considers relevant factors [44]. On the facts there was no good arguable case of unlawful market manipulation so the claim failed.

7/9/15

SANTANDER UK PLC v ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND PLC [2015] EWHC 2560 (Ch)

Although expressing some doubt as to whether the judge in Santander UK v Natwest (2012) had been correct to hold that unjust enrichment is sufficient to engage the Norwich Pharmacal jurisdiction, the court followed the decision and made a Norwich Pharmacal order in similar circumstances but refused in its discretion to order disclosure of anything other than names and addresses.

31/7/14

SANTANDER UK PLC v NATIONAL WESTMINSTER BANK PLC [2014] EWHC 2626 (Ch)

Norwich Pharmacal orders would be made requiring banks which had received mistaken payments to disclose the name, address, telephone number and email address of the recipient account holder. An equitable wrong such as unjust enrichment is sufficient to engage the Norwich Pharmacal jurisdiction. Even though some of the sums involved were small, it was proportionate to make an order. But dates of birth of the recipients would not be ordered to be disclosed and there would be express restrictions on the purposes for which the claimant could use the information obtained.

10/7/14

SRJ v PERSON(S) UNKOWN [2014] EWHC 2293 (QB)

The court refused to make an order under s 37 Senior Courts Act 1981 requiring disclosure by a solicitor of the identity of a client. Considers whether a client’s identity can be the subject of legal professional privilege.

21/11/12

THE RUGBY FOOTBALL UNION v CONSOLIDATED INFORMATION SERVICES LTD [2012] UKSC 55

Reviews principles on which Norwich Pharmacal orders may be made for disclosure of information by third parties involved another’s wrongdoing. The appellant’s right to the protection of its personal data had not been breached by the making of an order requiring it to disclose the identities of persons who had used its website to buy and sell tickets issued by the RFU for more than face value.

Bank Notes