Grant v Google UK Ltd.

[2005] EWHC 3444 (Ch)

Case details

Case citations
[2005] EWHC 3444 (Ch)
Court
High Court (Chancery Division)
Judgment date
17 May 2006
Judgment text

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Subjects
Civil procedure Equity and trusts Norwich Pharmacal disclosure
Keywords
Norwich Pharmacal order pre-action disclosure identity of wrongdoer copyright infringement internet advertisement confidentiality costs undertaking
Outcome
application granted
Judicial consideration

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Summary

A Norwich Pharmacal order may be made where a respondent has become mixed up in the apparent wrongdoing of others and is able to disclose their identity. The order is appropriate where the disclosure is needed to enable the claimant to address an apparent infringement and the respondent does not oppose disclosure. The claimant should ordinarily undertake to pay the respondent’s proper costs of providing the information.

Factual background

Helen Grant, trustee of the Individuals Self-Discovery Trust, applied for a Norwich Pharmacal order against Google UK Limited. The Trust alleged that an earlier draft of its copyrighted work, Unlock Reality, had been made available for download through an advertisement generated by Google’s search engine.

The Trust sought the identity and contact details of the advertiser, having been unable to identify the owners of the relevant website. Google did not oppose disclosure provided that the Trust abandoned its application for a prohibitory injunction. The central issue was whether an order requiring Google to disclose the advertiser’s identity should be made.

Held

  1. Application granted. The court made an order requiring Google to disclose the requested information. The application for a prohibitory injunction was abandoned and was not determined.
  2. The court applied the Norwich Pharmacal jurisdiction. Google had become mixed up in the apparent wrongdoing of others and was in a position to disclose their identity to the Trust. The alleged unauthorised internet distribution of the draft work provided the relevant context for the disclosure application.
  3. The order was made notwithstanding that Google’s evidence did not expressly explain why it had initially declined to provide the information. The circumstances suggested that Google might have perceived a duty of confidentiality to its customers, but that did not prevent the disclosure order being made on the application as presented.
  4. Consistently with the usual practice in such applications, the Trust was required to undertake to pay Google’s proper costs of providing the requested information.

The court’s approach to earlier authorities

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Key cases cited

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Cases citing this case

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.