Norwich Pharmacal order
Year Case Description
1978 Loose v Williamson It was established that in urgent cases , where delay could cause substantial and irreparable harm , an application for a Norwich Pharmacal order can be made without notice
1980 SmithKline and French Laboratories Ltd v R.D . Harbottle ( Mercantile ) Ltd It was first established that because the order is made against an innocent third party , the applicant should normally be required to pay the innocent third party 's costs , which the applicant may later recover from the wrongdoer or Intended Defendants
1981 British Steel Corp. v Granada Television The House of Lords established the principle that Norwich Pharmacal orders should only be granted where the applicant intends to seek redress by court proceedings or otherwise . It upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal that journalists can , according to the law , be forced to disclose their news sources . The decision prompted the passage of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 , which allows courts to refuse disclosure orders where it could not be established that disclosure is necessary in the interest of justice or national security or for the prevention of disorder or crime . This has been used in subsequent applications for Norwich Pharmacal orders to afford general protection for a journalist 's sources
2001 Totalise v Motley Fool In one of the first Norwich orders against an online chat room operator , the investment advice company Motley Fool was compelled to identify a user who had posted allegedly libellous comments about the ISP Totalise , thus establishing the applicability of the jurisdiction to alleged offences such as libel and copyright infringement . The case reaffirmed the principle established in SmithKline that the applicant pays the third party 's cost , even where the third party actively contests the order , because it is for the applicant to prove to the court that he or she is entitled to the disclosure order . Legitimate reasons for contesting an application include : genuine doubt that the person seeking the disclosure order is entitled to it , the legal position regarding obligations not to disclose data ( for example under the Data Protection Act 1998 ) is not clear , and that the disclosure of the information sought might infringe a legitimate interest of another
2008 Smith v ADVFN PLC In a case concerning alleged libel on an Internet bulletin board , the Court of Appeal refused to grant a Norwich Pharmacal order against the bulletin board which would have forced the identification of individuals who were alleged to have libelled the applicant . The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court ruling that it would be disproportionate to grant the order and that the applicant had not established an arguable case of libel . The Court of Appeal also provided guidance on the quality and quantity of the evidence needed to support a Norwich Pharmacal order . It was ruled that applicants for a Norwich Pharmacal order need to provide the court with a coherent body of evidence which allows for an allegation of wrongdoing to be properly assessed
2008 Arab Satellite Communications Organisation v Saad Faqih & Anr The High Court clarified that Norwich Pharmacal orders should not be granted for fishing expeditions . In the case , Middle Eastern inter-governmental organisations applied for an order against a Saudi dissident for the identification of individuals that may have been involved in the broadcast of political material . The High Court refused to grant an order which would compel a third party to make a judgement about who may have done something , and ruled that Norwich Pharmacal does not give claimants a general licence to fish for information that will do not more than potentially assist them to identify a claim or a defendant
2008 Applause Store Productions Ltd. v Raphael This involved the grant of a Norwich Pharmacal order against Facebook , ordering the disclosure of registration details , email addresses and the IP addresses used by the respondent
2009 G & G v Wikimedia Foundation Inc This involved the grant of an order to disclose the IP addresses used by a Wikipedia editor who had added information to a Wikipedia article which the claimant said infringed her and her child 's privacy rights
2009 Lockton Companies International v Persons Unknown This involved the request for an order against Google to disclose subscriber details and IP addresses to identify the sender of anonymous defamatory emails
Developments in case law
A Norwich Pharmacal order is a court order for the disclosure of documents or information that is available in the United Kingdom. It is granted against a third party which has been innocently mixed up in wrongdoing, forcing the disclosure of documents or information. By identifying individuals the documents and information sought are disclosed in order to assist the applicant for such an order in bringing legal proceedings against individuals who are believed to have wronged the applicant. A Norwich Pharmacal order was first granted in 1974 by the House of Lords in Norwich Pharmacal Co. v Customs and Excise Commissioners, a case concerning the alleged violation of a patent by unknown importers of the chemical subject to the patent. While first developed in relation to intellectual property, Norwich Pharmacal orders are now granted in relation to other torts, including defamation, and breach of contract, as well as alleged criminal offences. More recently Norwich Pharmacal orders are used against Internet hosting services and Internet service providers to identify users which have allegedly engaged in wrongdoing. In 2011, it was proposed that Norwich Pharmacal orders should not be granted by the UK courts where disclosure of the material in question would cause damage to the public interest. This was implemented in the Justice and Security Act 2013.