Application to set aside Norwich Pharmacal Order: ‘The application raises the question whether the court has jurisdiction to permit service out of the jurisdiction of an application for the grant of a Norwich Pharmacal Order.’
Held: An order for the disclosure of information from a third party mixed up in another’s wrongdoings was not an interim order in the sense identified in para.3.1(5) of the Part 6B Practice Direction and was, in fact, final relief sought by the claimant against the respondent to such an application. On that basis, para.3.1(5) did not apply.
A Norwich Pharmacal application is one for final relief, not an interim remedy.
Teare J
[2016] EWHC 2082 (Comm), [2016] CP Rep 47, [2016] 2 CLC 372, [2017] 1 WLR 810, [2016] WLR(D) 490
Bailii, WLRD
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Norwich Pharmacal Co and others v Customs and Excise Commissioners CA 2-Jan-1972
The plaintiffs sought discovery of the names of patent infringers from the defendant third party, submitting that by analogy with trade mark and passing-off cases, the Customs could be ordered to give discovery of the names.
Held: Buckley LJ . .
Cited by:
Cited – Ion Science v Persons Unknown 21-Dec-2020
Butcher J said that the ‘. . lex situs of a cryptoasset is the place where the person or company who owns it is domiciled. . . There is apparently no decided case in relation to the lex situs for a cryptoasset. Nevertheless, I am satisfied that . .
Cited – Fetch.AI Ltd and Another v Persons Unknown Category A and Others ComC 15-Jul-2021
Cryptocurrency Action
The claimants sought damages and other remedies saying that the unknown defendants had obtained access to the private key guarding their crypto currency assets, and then sold them at an undervalue, acquiring substantial profits for themselves in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 August 2021; Ref: scu.568020