Norwich Pharmacal Co. v Customs and Excise Commissioners

Norwich Pharmacal Co. v Customs and Excise
Court	House of Lords
Full case name	Norwich Pharmacal Co. & Ors v Commissioners of Customs and Excise
Date decided	26 June 1973
Citation(s)	[1973] 3 WLR 164; [1973] FSR 365; [1973] 2 All ER 943; [1974] RPC 101; [1973] UKHL 6; [1974] AC 133
Transcript(s)	Full text of judgment
Judge(s) sitting	Lord Reid Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest Viscount Dilhorne Lord Cross of Chelsea Lord Kilbrandon
Keywords
interim injunctions; pre-action disclosure; application notice; quia timet injunctions; joint tortfeasors; freezing orders; search orders; cause of action; preliminary injunctions; locus standi

Norwich Pharmacal Co. & Others v Customs and Excise Commissioners [1974] AC 133 was a case involving the owner and exclusive licensee of a patent for an antibacterial called furazolidone. Between 1960 and 1970 unlicensed shipments of the chemical were imported into Britain, but Norwich Pharmacal were unable to identify the importers. The Commissioners held information that would identify the importers, but would not disclose this, claiming that they had no authority to give such information.

Norwich Pharmacal order

The House of Lords held that where an innocent third party had information relating to unlawful conduct, a court could compel them to assist the person suffering damage by giving them that information.^[1] This is now known as a "Norwich Pharmacal order".^[2]

For this relief to be granted, the victim must demonstrate to the court:^[3]

• a reasonable basis to allege that a wrong has actually been committed
• the disclosure of documents or information from the third party is needed to enable action against the wrongdoer
• the respondent is not a "mere witness", but is sufficiently mixed up in the wrongdoing so as to have facilitated it, even if innocently, and therefore be in a position to provide the information
• the order is necessary in the interests of justice on the facts of the case.

Cases involving Norwich Pharmacal orders

• Applause Store Productions & Firsht v Raphael [2008] EWHC 1781, [2008] All ER (D) 321 (Jul) - 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.
• G & G v Wikimedia Foundation Inc [2009] EWHC 3148 (QB), [2009] All ER (D) 92 (Dec) - 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.
• Lockton Companies International & Others v Persons Unknown and Google Inc [2009] EWHC 3423 (QB) - This involved the request for an order against Google to disclose subscriber details and IP addresses to identify the sender of anonymous defamatory emails.

References

1. ^ "Norwich Pharmacal Orders". Gillhams LLP. http://www.gillhams.com/dictionary/556.cfm. Retrieved 30 September 2010. 
2. ^ Christopher, William; Sheeley, Alan (17 July 2009). "Show me your cards!". New Law Journal: 1026–1027. 
3. ^ "Recent developments on Norwich Pharmacal jurisdiction". Lexology.com. 3 June 2010. http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=fac47257-943c-42aa-91c9-0d98a2ebff71. Retrieved 30 September 2010. 

External links

• Full transcript at BAILII