Linda May Green v CT Group Holdings Limited

A Norwich Pharmacal application involving a jurisdictional element requires more than the conventional conditions. The applicant must identify a legitimate purpose for seeking the information. The remedy cannot be used to obtain evidence for foreign civil proceedings, or in connection with foreign criminal proceedings or investigations, where the relevant statutory scheme is exclusive. A “wait and see” approach to the intended use of the information is insufficient. The court must also be satisfied that disclosure would serve a useful and legitimate purpose and would be an appropriate and proportionate response. The application was dismissed because the proposed uses were impermissible and disclosure was unlikely to assist in identifying the ultimate wrongdoer or advancing legitimate proceedings.

The claimant sought Norwich Pharmacal relief from a private investigation company. The relief sought included the identities of persons who had supplied documents said to evidence substantial transfers to the claimant, together with information about how those documents had been obtained and verified.

The documents were to be used principally in proceedings concerning the restructuring of family trusts before the Royal Courts of Jersey and Guernsey. The claimant alleged that the documents were forged and that she was the victim of serious wrongdoing. The defendant accepted that it was mixed up in the alleged wrongdoing but disputed the other conditions for relief and argued that the application should be adjourned pending related proceedings in New York.

1. Disposition. The application and the action were dismissed.
2. The conventional Norwich Pharmacal conditions identified in Collier v Bennett are: a good arguable case of a legally recognised wrong; involvement in or facilitation of that wrongdoing; possession or likely possession of information capable of identifying or pursuing the ultimate wrongdoer; and overall justice, including appropriateness and proportionality. Those conditions do not adequately address cases extending beyond domestic proceedings.
3. In a case with a jurisdictional element, a further Proper Purpose condition applies. The applicant must identify a legitimate purpose for which the information is sought. It is insufficient to adopt a “wait and see” approach.
4. Following R (Omar) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and the authorities applying it, Norwich Pharmacal relief cannot be used to obtain evidence for foreign civil proceedings, or in connection with foreign criminal proceedings or investigations, where the statutory schemes governing such evidence are engaged. The court has no residual jurisdiction to bypass those schemes.
5. The claimant had a good arguable case that forged documents had caused at least a civil wrong. The possession condition was also capable of being satisfied even though the defendant did not know the identity of the ultimate source, because disclosure might assist in identifying that person.
6. Nevertheless, the claimant had not shown a permissible purpose. The proposed use in the Channel Island proceedings and for foreign criminal complaints was impermissible. The possible use in proceedings in England against the defendant had not been properly framed and would have required consideration under CPR 31.16.
7. The overall justice condition was not satisfied. The evidence suggested that the defendant could identify only an intermediary based outside the jurisdiction, not the ultimate source. The likely utility of an order was therefore very limited. Confidentiality and security concerns were relevant but would not alone have justified refusal.
8. An adjournment pending the New York proceedings under 28 USC § 1782 would not have served a sensible purpose.