The rule in Norwich Pharmacal does not provide a general right of discovery. Hoffman J cited Lord Reid in Norwich Pharmacal and said: ‘The reference to ‘full information’ has sometimes led to an assumption that any person who has become mixed up in a tortious act can be required not merely to disclose the identity of the wrongdoer but to give general discovery and answer questions on all matters relevant to the course of action. In my view this is wrong. The principle upon which Lord Reid distinguished the ‘mere witness’ rule was that unless the plaintiff discovered the identity of the wrongdoer, he could not commence proceedings. The reasoning of the other members of the House is the same. The Norwich Pharmacal case is no authority for imposing upon ‘mixed up’ third parties a genera) obligation to give discovery or information when the identity of the defendant is already known.’
Judges:
Hoffman J
Citations:
[1992] 2 All ER 911
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Norwich Pharmacal Co and others v Customs and Excise Commissioners HL 26-Jun-1973
Innocent third Party May still have duty to assist
The plaintiffs sought discovery from the defendants of documents received by them innocently in the exercise of their statutory functions. They sought to identify people who had been importing drugs unlawfully manufactured in breach of their . .
Cited by:
Approved – Mohamed, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 1) Admn 21-Aug-2008
The claimant had been detained by the US in Guantanamo Bay suspected of terrorist involvement. He sought to support his defence documents from the respondent which showed that the evidence to be relied on in the US courts had been obtained by . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice
Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.272822