GovData Limited v Indeed UK Operations Limited

A Norwich Pharmacal order to identify anonymous online reviewers requires more than an arguable civil wrong. The applicant must show a prospective claim with a real prospect of success and the court must then conduct a careful, proportionate balancing exercise, including the target’s privacy and freedom of expression.

The jurisdiction cannot be used speculatively to identify critics, satisfy curiosity, or facilitate revenge. Reviews must be sufficiently identified and particularised for the court to assess the alleged wrongdoing and frame any order. Where the underlying claims are weak, inadequately particularised, time-barred, or unsupported by evidence of relevant loss, the public interest in vindicating rights may be outweighed by the reviewer’s interest in anonymity.

GovData Limited sought a Norwich Pharmacal order against Indeed UK Operations Limited to disclose information identifying anonymous authors of critical employment reviews. The claim was brought under CPR Part 8 and contemplated claims in defamation, malicious falsehood and several other causes of action.

The application identified four reviews, while oral submissions sought wider relief concerning unspecified reviews. GovData also applied to add its chief executive and chief operating officer as claimants. The central issues were whether the prospective claims had a real prospect of success, whether the reviews were sufficiently particularised, and whether disclosure was necessary and proportionate having regard to the reviewers’ privacy and freedom of expression.

1. Outcome. The application for a Norwich Pharmacal order was refused. The application to add Mr and Ms Hugo as claimants was also refused. The court stated that amendment would have been allowed if they had otherwise been entitled to relief, but it would have been pointless because the substantive relief was unavailable.
2. Applicable test. The threshold requirements were summarised from Mitsui & Co Ltd v Nexen Petroleum Ltd [2005] EWHC 625 (Ch): an arguable wrong, a need for disclosure to enable proceedings against the ultimate wrongdoer, and a respondent mixed up in the wrongdoing and able or likely to provide the information. Even where those requirements are met, relief remains discretionary and must be necessary and proportionate, applying the approach in Ashworth Hospital Authority v MGN Ltd [2002] UKHL 29 and the non-exhaustive factors in Rugby Football Union v Viagogo Ltd [2012] UKSC 55.
3. In anonymous online speech cases, Davidoff v Google [2023] EWHC 1958 establishes that the applicant must demonstrate a claim with a real prospect of success as a threshold criterion. That is not sufficient by itself. The court must also assess whether justice requires disclosure, balancing the strength and value of the claim against the target’s privacy and freedom of expression.
4. Relief concerning unidentified additional reviews was impermissible. The reviews had not been described sufficiently to permit assessment of the alleged wrongs or the drafting of a targeted order. A general reference to reviews critical of the claimant was too vague.
5. Only the four identified reviews and potential claims in defamation and malicious falsehood were considered. The other suggested causes of action, including assault, breach of contract, breach of privacy, unlawful means conspiracy or tort, misfeasance in public office and computer misuse, were unsupported or inadequately particularised.
6. Review 3 provided the only arguable basis for a claim, namely possible defamation claims by Mr and Ms Hugo. Nevertheless, the evidence indicated that any loss was likely to have other causes and that the review was an expression of the author’s opinion. The court was also concerned that the litigation was intended to suppress criticism or exact revenge rather than obtain legitimate redress. The balance therefore fell firmly against disclosure.