AA v JJ

A Norwich Pharmacal order may be granted where the respondent is likely to hold relevant information, there is a good arguable case of wrongdoing, the respondent is mixed up in it, the mere witness rule is not infringed, and disclosure is necessary in the interests of justice for a proper purpose.

An anonymity order and a temporary restriction on disclosure of the existence of the order may be justified where notification would prejudice enforcement or contemplated claims. The court may extend the period for compliance and confidentiality where further investigation is reasonably required.

AA sought a Norwich Pharmacal order against MM, a financial services provider believed to hold information about accounts controlled by her former husband, XY. The order was sought to support enforcement of a judgment against XY and to enable AA to plead a contemplated claim under section 423 of the Insolvency Act.

Earlier Norwich Pharmacal orders had been made by Murray J against other financial institutions. One institution, HH, stated that it did not hold the relevant information and identified MM as the institution holding it. AA therefore sought equivalent relief against MM.

AA also sought an anonymity order and extensions of the disclosure and confidentiality periods in the earlier orders. The defendants did not attend or oppose the applications.

1. Norwich Pharmacal relief. The requirements were that no other relevant CPR provision applied; the respondent was likely to have relevant information or documents; there was a good arguable case of wrongdoing; the mere witness rule was not infringed; the respondent was mixed up in the wrongdoing; and the order was necessary in the interests of justice and was not sought for an improper purpose.
2. The court adopted the reasons given by Murray J when granting the earlier orders. Those reasons established that the requirements for Norwich Pharmacal relief were met. The application against MM satisfied the same requirements because the information disclosed by HH indicated that MM held the relevant account information. The order was therefore just and appropriate.
3. Anonymity. An anonymity order was necessary to secure the proper administration of justice. If the proceedings were brought to XY’s attention, the Norwich Pharmacal relief and contemplated claims might be rendered ineffective. The order was made under Civil Procedure Rules rule 39.2(3)(a), (g) and rule 39.2(4).
4. Extension of confidentiality and compliance periods. The restriction preventing MM from informing others about the order, and the period for providing documents and information, could be extended to allow AA to continue investigations, including in other jurisdictions. The risk of notification frustrating enforcement and contemplated claims justified the extension. The orders were made in the terms of the draft orders.