Various Claimants v News Group Newspapers Ltd & Ors

The Norwich Pharmacal jurisdiction is not confined to cases in which the respondent participated in or facilitated the original wrongdoing. The essential distinction is between a mere witness or bystander and a person whose engagement with the wrongdoing makes it just to require disclosure. The court may assess involvement flexibly. Investigatory bodies may therefore fall within the jurisdiction where their engagement goes beyond merely possessing relevant information, including by notifying apparent victims, providing limited information and accepting in principle that fuller disclosure should be made. Disclosure must remain necessary and proportionate. Case-management powers cannot create a new jurisdiction for third-party disclosure, but may be used to administer a lawful Norwich Pharmacal regime efficiently.

The claimants were existing or potential victims of alleged phone hacking by journalists working for News Group Newspapers Ltd. They sought disclosure from the Metropolitan Police Service of information obtained during police investigations, including material concerning the existence, extent and perpetrators of alleged hacking.

The police did not oppose the proposed disclosure regime, but News Group Newspapers Ltd argued that the court lacked jurisdiction and that the orders were in any event inappropriate. The application relied variously on Norwich Pharmacal principles, CPR 31.17 and case-management powers. The central questions were whether the police were sufficiently involved in the wrongdoing to attract Norwich Pharmacal relief and whether the proposed managed disclosure procedure was lawful and proportionate.

1. Jurisdiction. CPR 3.1(2)(m) does not create a free-standing power to order third-party disclosure where no existing jurisdiction permits it. CPR 31.17 likewise presupposes an application by a party to existing proceedings and could not justify the proposed pre-action Part 2 disclosure. Section 34(2) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 confirms that statutory limitation.
2. Norwich Pharmacal threshold. The authorities are best understood as distinguishing a mere witness or bystander from a person who is sufficiently engaged with the wrongdoing to owe a duty to assist. Participation or facilitation are common examples, but they are not exhaustive labels. The jurisdiction is flexible and must not be treated as a rigid formula.
3. The MPS was more than a mere witness. It had acquired the information through its public investigative functions, had informed apparent victims that they had probably been victims, had supplied limited information while indicating that further material existed, and did not oppose fuller disclosure under an appropriate regime. Taken together, those matters were sufficient to bring the MPS within the jurisdiction.
4. The information was necessary because victims could not properly assess whether they had a claim, plead it meaningfully or evaluate settlement without it. Disclosure at an earlier stage was proportionate. Confidentiality concerning other victims and the integrity of investigations could be protected by undertakings and redactions.
5. The court could manage the relief through the existing managed litigation. It could dispense with separate originating processes and individual applications where the respondent waived that requirement and the regime was an effective, proportionate means of avoiding repetitive applications.
6. The disclosure orders were made, subject to provision for payment of the MPS’s reasonable costs of complying with each request.

First-instance application in the High Court. No appellate decision is stated in the judgment.