Risky Business | Series 2, Episode 3 | Norwich Pharmacal orders

In this episode, Hashem Hijjawi and Camille Lukusa from Clyde & Co's Global Dispute Resolution team explore the concept of Norwich Pharmacal orders, a legal tool used to compel third parties to disclose information necessary to identify wrongdoers. They explain the origins of this relief in the 1974 House of Lords case of Norwich Pharmacal Co v Customs and Excise Commissioners, where the court held that justice required HMRC to disclose the identities of patent infringers.

Hashem and Camille discuss the three key requirements for obtaining a Norwich Pharmacal order: evidence of wrongdoing, the involvement of the third party in facilitating the wrongdoing, and the appropriateness of disclosure as a proportionate response. They highlight a recent case, Filatona Trading Limited & Anor v Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, where the court granted Norwich Pharmacal relief against a law firm, emphasizing the importance of transparency and accountability even in arbitration contexts.

The episode also considers the application of Norwich Pharmacal orders in the context of social media and reviews posted on websites such as Google, Glassdoor, Indeed.co.uk, and others. Hashem and Camille provide practical insights into the flexible and adaptable nature of this legal remedy, underscoring its relevance in contemporary legal practice. 

The full citations of the cases referenced during the discussion are as follows: Norwich Pharmacal Co v Customs and Excise Commissioners [1973] UKHL 6 (26 June 1973); Filatona Trading Limited and Oleg Deripaska v Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan UK LLP [2024] EWHC 2573 (Comm); Davidoff and ors v Google LLC [2023] EWHC 1958 (KB), 28 July 2023; and Samuels t/a Samuels & Co Solicitors v Henry [2024] EWHC 2898.