An application was made by the plaintiff for interrogatories which would have revealed the publisher of an allegedly defamatory letter.
Held: The interrogatories were disallowed. Under the Norwich Pharmacal jurisdiction the respondent was no more than someone who had the information in question and who had not in any way facilitated the perpetration of the alleged wrong. The court declined to extend the remedy in such a way as would cover the facts of the case, and it plainly emphasised the fact that the jurisdiction cannot be invoked against a ‘mere witness’. However the court said it might have been prepared to consider whether the principles underlying Norwich Pharmacal might have justified the extension of the jurisdiction to persons other than those falling within the actual formulation in Norwich Pharmacal:
‘Mr Browne’s formulation contains nothing in the nature of a principle. Nor does it point out any categorisation or definition of defendants against whom actions for discovery should be admissible beyond those covered by the tests referred to in Norwich Pharmacal. In effect, it is no more than a somewhat emotive statement of what the plaintiff feels the law should be on the particular facts of this case.
If Mr Browne’s submission involved in some basis of principle which is consistent, or at least not inconsistent, with Norwich Pharmacal, then its soundness would obviously have to be considered . . ‘
Citations:
[1987] 1 WLR 1658
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Various Claimants v News Group Newspapers Ltd and Others ChD 12-Jul-2013
The claimants sought disclosure by the police of information relating to the phone hacking activities said to have been conducted by journalists engaged by the first defendant newspaper. They were wanting to make claims against the respondent, but . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Company, Litigation Practice
Updated: 13 September 2022; Ref: scu.645436