Santander UK Plc v National Westminster Bank Plc & Ors

A Norwich Pharmacal order may require a bank to disclose the identity of an account holder who has received money paid by mistake. An unjust-enrichment claim is capable of engaging the jurisdiction. The applicant must show an arguable claim, the respondent’s involvement and the necessity of disclosure. The court must balance recovery rights against privacy and data-protection rights. Modest sums do not alone prevent relief, but disclosure must be limited to information reasonably necessary for recovery.

Santander made eight applications under CPR Part 23 against banks holding accounts into which Santander had mistakenly made electronic payments. It had refunded its customers and sought the beneficiaries’ identities to pursue restitutionary claims. The respondent banks did not oppose the applications. The central issues were whether unjust enrichment supplied the necessary wrongdoing, whether disclosure was necessary, and whether the relief was proportionate.

1. The eight applications were granted, subject to safeguards. The disclosed information could be used only to pursue recovery of the mistaken payments.
2. The beneficiaries had prima facie been enriched by receipt of money to which they had no claim or right. Unjust enrichment was an equitable wrong capable of justifying a Norwich Pharmacal order: Bankers Trust v Shapira [1980] 1 WLR 1274.
3. Relief was exceptional and required necessity. Santander had no other reasonable course after enquiries of its customers and the beneficiary banks: Ashworth Hospital v MGN Ltd [2002] 1 WLR 2033; Mitsui v Nexen [2005] EWHC 625 (Ch).
4. The court balanced Santander’s strongly arguable claim and inability to obtain the information elsewhere against the beneficiaries’ privacy and data-protection rights. There was no presumption in favour of disclosure. The approach in Rugby Football Union v Consolidated Information Services [2012] UKSC 55 and Golden Eye v Telefonica [2012] EWCA Civ 1740 was applied.
5. Relief was proportionate despite payments as low as £600. Date of birth was excluded as unnecessary and intrusive; name, address, telephone number and email address were permitted.

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