Norwich Pharmacal Orders: Is the third party ‘mixed up’ in wrongdoing

The outcome of a Norwich Pharmacal order (NPO) can make or break a claim against the defendant. However, you cannot assume the court will grant such an order – applicants need to carefully consider whether to take the financial risk of seeking an NPO. The award-winning attorneys at ParrisWhittaker have years of experience advising clients on the merits of seeking an NPO and defending an application.

In a recent ruling¹ from the UK, the High Court refused an application for an NPO against tech giant Google. The ruling has persuasive authority on the courts in The Bahamas.

Why are Norwich Pharmacal Orders useful?

An NPO is a specific type of disclosure order requiring an individual – or corporation or other organisation – to disclose documents and information that could help identify a third party suspected of wrongdoing, such as fraud or other criminal activity.

Importantly, the order is made against an innocent party who is believed to hold information essential to ascertaining where fault or criminal activity lies. But the courts will not readily grant such orders.

What led to this application?

In this case, two of several claimants were property management and estate agent companies claiming to have been the victims of ‘fake reviews’ posted by individuals on review website Trustpilot. They alleged they were defamatory about individuals and the companies.

The claimants had already secured an NPO against Trustpilot enabling them to identify the email addresses associated with the accounts that posted the reviews concerned. They were now seeking a further NPO, this time against Google, in an attempt to identify the individuals controlling or operating those email addresses – thus proving they were the ones who posted the reviews.

Applications for NPOs are made ‘without notice’ and it is crucial that the claimant provides full and frank disclosure to the court. Here, one of the applicants had stated something demonstrably false in the application (not a good move if you want the judge on side).

Furthermore, it is a requirement that the third party against whom an NPO is sought must be ‘mixed up in’ the alleged wrongdoing.

However, the judge’s view was that Google played no role in the alleged wrongdoing – all it had done was provide email accounts. The judge said it “has neither engaged in nor facilitated the alleged wrongdoing; nor has it furthered the posting of the Review.”

The application was therefore refused.

How can we help?

Anyone seeking an NPO must take robust legal advice from experienced Norwich Pharmacal order lawyers. The reputable litigators at top Bahamas firm Parris Whittaker have an outstanding track record in securing all forms of disclosure orders, as well as defending applications for NPOs and other orders.

For expert legal advice contact Jacy Whittaker on +1.242.352.6112 or email him at info@parriswhittaker.com.

¹Davidoff & ors v Google LLC [2023] EWHC 1958