The Norwich Pharmacal Order (“NPO”) has, for the last five decades, been a valuable tool in the hands of a potential claimant who seeks identify anonymous wrongdoers. A third party who holds identifying information can, if they have been “mixed up” in the wrongdoing, be ordered to disclose identifying documents or information. Continue reading
The International Forum for Responsible Media Blog
Tag: Norwich Pharmacal
In his judgment in Davidoff v Google LLC ([2023] EWHC 1958 (KB)) Nicklin J has comprehensively restated the principles to be applied on Norwich Pharmacal applications, emphasising the importance of balancing the Convention rights of the applicant and those of the alleged wrongdoer. Continue reading
In AB Bank Ltd v Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank PJSC ([2016] EWHC 2082 (Comm)), Teare J set aside a Norwich Pharmacal Order (“NPO”) made against a bank in the UAE on the basis that the court had no jurisdiction to serve the order on the bank out of the jurisdiction because none of the permitted jurisdictional gateways under Practice Direction 6B to the Civil Procedure Rules were applicable. Continue reading
In an important ruling in the phone hacking litigation ([2013] EWHC 2119 (Ch)), the new managing judge, Mann J held that Norwich Pharmacal disclosure could be ordered against the Metropolitan Police despite the fact that they did not “participate” in the original wrongdoing. Continue reading
The new managing judge in the phone hacking litigation, Mr Justice Mann, handed down an important judgment on Friday 12 July 2013. He allowed an application by the claimants for disclosure by the police in relation to the new “Operation Pinetree”. Continue reading
The recent judgment of the Supreme Court inThe Rugby Football Union v Consolidated Information Services Limited (formerly Viagogo Limited) [2012] UKSC 55 provides a forceful restatement by the highest authority in this jurisdiction of the court’s power to grant third party disclosure orders under the principle originally laid down by the House of Lords in Norwich Pharmacal Co v Customs & Excise Commissioners [1974] AC 133.
Recent Judgments
© 2026 Inforrm's Blog
Theme by Anders Norén — Up ↑