Lockton Companies International & Ors v Persons Unknown & Anor

The court may grant Norwich Pharmacal relief against a foreign-based respondent where the relief is substantive, the respondent is a necessary and proper party, and the order is required to identify persons who may be sued within the jurisdiction. Permission to serve out is not precluded merely because the foreign respondent’s practical role is disclosure, provided the application seeks substantive relief and falls within the applicable jurisdictional provisions. The relief is appropriate where there is evidence of actionable wrongdoing within the jurisdiction, a real need for identification, and a reasonable prospect that the respondent can provide information enabling proceedings to be brought.

The claimants applied for permission to serve proceedings out of the jurisdiction on Google Inc, a Delaware company physically present in California. Google had indicated that it would comply with any order but did not submit to the court’s jurisdiction.

The proposed claim concerned communications said to involve defamation, harassment and infringements of data protection legislation. The claimants sought Norwich Pharmacal relief to obtain information identifying the unknown persons responsible. The court considered whether the unknown defendants were likely to be within the jurisdiction, whether Google was a necessary and proper party, and whether the requirements for Norwich Pharmacal relief were satisfied.

1. Permission to serve out. The offending communications concerned an English company and its employees, and the recipients were within the jurisdiction. It was therefore reasonable to infer that the persons responsible, once identified, would be served within the jurisdiction. Google was a necessary and proper party because information from it was required to identify those persons.
2. Substantive relief. Norwich Pharmacal relief is substantive relief. The application therefore did not offend the principle that jurisdiction cannot be asserted against a foreign-resident party solely to obtain disclosure of documents.
3. Norwich Pharmacal criteria. Applying the three criteria identified by Lightman J in the Mitsui case, the court found that wrongs had apparently been committed within the jurisdiction, including defamation, harassment and infringements of data protection legislation. There was a need for an order to obtain the names of the persons concerned, and such an order could be effective only against Google.
4. Disposition. The evidence gave reason to believe that Google could supply information enabling the claimants to bring proceedings against the unknown persons. The court exercised its discretion to grant the Norwich Pharmacal relief and granted both orders sought.

First-instance decision. No prior appellate decision is stated in the judgment.