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 were hampered by the absence of appropriate information.
Held: the first, and real, question is whether the disclosure sought from the MPS could be justified by invoking the Norwich Pharmacal jurisdiction. If it can then no further search for jurisdiction is necessary.
Mann J
[2013] EWHC 2119 (Ch), [2014] EMLR 6, [2013] WLR(D) 314, [2014] 2 WLR 756, [2014] 1 Ch 400
Bailii, Gazette, WLRD
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 – Aoot Kalmneft v Denton Wilde Sapte (A Firm) Merc 29-Oct-2001
The court ordered relief by way of disclosure against a third party: ‘In Norwich Pharmacal the information required was the identity of the wrongdoer (the applicant knew what wrong had been done but not who had done it) but I see no reason why the . .
Cited – Upmann v Elkan CA 5-Jun-1871
The defendant freight forwarding agent was innocently in possession of consignments of counterfeit cigars in transit to Germany through a London dock. The action was not for discovery, but for an order restraining the forwarder from releasing the . .
Cited – Mitsui and Co Ltd v Nexen Petroleum UK Ltd ChD 29-Apr-2005
Mitsui sought disclosure of documents from a third party under the rules in Norwich Pharmacal.
Held: Such relief was available ‘where the claimant requires the disclosure of crucial information in order to be able to bring its claim or where . .
Cited – Ricci v Chow CA 1987
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 29 July 2021; Ref: scu.512438