Disclosure of Information Norwich Pharmacal and Related Principles

Description

blank Foreword Acknowledgements About the Authors Table of UK and European Legislation Table of Cases 1 INTRODUCTION 2 OVERVIEW 2.1 Starting points 2.1.1 The context 2.1.2 The principles 2.1.3 Judicial summaries 2.2 Availability of relief 2.3 Threshold requirements – wrongdoing and involvement 2.4 Necessity 2.5 Discretion and common objections 2.6 Procedural issues 2.7 Modern applications 2.8 International dimensions 2.9 Other topics 3 BACKGROUND TO THE NORWICH PHARMACAL CASE 3.1 General practice of discovery 3.2 Early ancestors of Norwich Pharmacal 3.3 Persons having an interest 3.4 Subsequent authorities 3.5 Orr v Diaper 3.6 Upmann v Elkan 3.7 Later developments 4 THE NORWICH PHARMACAL CASE 4.1 The facts 4.2 First instance 4.3 Court of Appeal 4.4 House of Lords 4.5 Subsequent developments 5 FULL INFORMATION TO ASSIST THE VICTIM OF FRAUD: BANKERS TRUST 5.1 Early developments following Norwich Pharmacal 5.2 The Mareva line of authorities 5.3 Immediate predecessors of Bankers Trust 5.4 Bankers Trust v Shapira 5.5 The scope of Bankers Trust orders 5.6 Tracing claims and personal claims 5.6.1 Freezing injunctions 5.6.2 Beyond proprietary claims 5.6.3 The equitable jurisdiction 6 EXTENDING NORWICH PHARMACAL 6.1 Post-judgment enforcement 6.2 Missing piece of the jigsaw 6.2.1 P v T 6.2.2 Axa Equity & Law Life Assurance v National Westminster Bank plc 6.2.3 AOOT Kalmneft v Denton Wilde Sapte 6.2.4 Carlton v VCI and VDC 6.2.5 Mitsui v Nexen Petroleum 6.2.6 Binyan Mohamed 6.2.7 United Company Rusal v HSBC Bank and others 6.2.8 Ramilos v Buyanovsky 6.2.9 Overseas authority 6.2.10 Discussion 6.3 The flexible remedy 6.3.1 Ashworth Hospital Authority v MGN 6.3.2 The torture cases – Binyan Mohamed 6.3.3 Subsequent cases 6.4 Broader impact 6.5 Persons unknown 6.6 Conclusions 7 WRONGDOING 7.1 Whose wrongdoing? 7.2 Categories of wrong 7.3 Post-judgment orders 7.4 The meaning of ‘wrongdoing’ 7.5 Intermediaries, wrongdoers and innocents 7.6 Possible wrongdoing – standard of proof 7.6.1 Overseas authorities 7.6.2 Conclusions 7.7 Wrongdoing and discretion 7.7.1 Bankers Trust 8 INVOLVEMENT 8.1 Origins of the requirement 8.2 Subsequent formulations 8.3 Agents and employees 8.4 Illustrations 8.5 Standard of proof 8.6 Respondent wrongdoer 9 NECESSITY 9.1 The necessity test 9.1.1 The House of Lords in Ashworth 9.1.2 Developments since Ashworth 9.1.3 Privy Council – Equatorial Guinea 9.1.4 Equatorial Guinea and English law 9.1.5 Subsequent cases 9.1.6 Overseas authorities 9.1.7 The applicable test – discussion 9.1.8 Practical application 9.2 Legitimate objectives 9.2.1 Categories of legitimate objectives 9.2.2 Timing as part of the legitimate objective 9.2.3 Broader considerations 10 DISCRETION AND SCOPE OF RELIEF 10.1 The discretionary test 10.1.1 European law and proportionality 10.1.2 Special test for actions against the respondent? 10.1.3 The applicant’s interests 10.2 Scope of relief 10.2.1 Documents or information 10.2.2 Information 10.2.3 Documents 10.2.4 Other orders 10.2.5 Cross examination 11 COMMON OBJECTIONS 11.1 Threshold objections – wrongdoing and involvement 11.2 Objections to the exercise of discretion 11.3 Confidentiality, privacy and commercial sensitivity 11.3.1 The interests 11.3.2 Confidentiality clubs 11.3.3 Independent solicitors 11.3.4 Article 8 ECHR 11.4 Public interest immunity 11.5 Whistleblowers 11.6 Revealing innocents 11.7 Wrongdoing 11.8 Limitations under other regimes 11.9 Alternative avenues 11.9.1 The relevant authorities 11.9.2 Legislative provisions 11.9.3 International considerations 11.9.4 Will or might be forthcoming? 11.10 Internal investigations 11.11 Inconvenience and cost 11.12 Inability to assist 11.13 Self-incrimination and the right to silence 11.14 Privilege and lawyers 11.14.1 Privilege 11.14.2 The special position of lawyers 11.15 Undertakings 11.16 Other factors 12 PROCEDURAL CONSIDERATIONS 12.1 Procedure 12.2 Draft orders 12.3 Interlocutory relief 12.4 Secrecy 12.5 Costs 12.6 Absent interests 12.6.1 Full and frank disclosure? 12.6.2 Other solutions 12.6.3 Public interest 12.7 Constraints upon use of information and documents 12.8 Inspection 12.9 Finality 13 MODERN APPLICATIONS 13.1 Internet and social media 13.2 Journalistic sources 13.2.1 Common law 13.2.2 The Contempt of Court Act 1981 13.2.3 The permitted exceptions 13.3 Defamation 13.4 Commercial secrets 13.5 Fraud 13.6 Post-judgment enforcement 13.7 Public authorities 13.8 Cryptocurrency 13.9 Collective redress 14 EXTRA-TERRITORIAL SCOPE 14.1 Substantive dispute overseas 14.1.1 Information and evidence 14.2 Interim relief and expediency 14.3 Jurisdiction over the respondent 14.3.1 The new gateway 14.3.2 Outside the new gateway 14.4 Subject matter jurisdiction and discretion 14.4.1 The Mackinnon principle 14.4.2 Redress other than proceedings 15 RELATED JURISDICTIONS 15.1 Pre-action disclosure 15.2 Access to court documents 15.3 Third party disclosure 15.4 Self-identification orders 15.5 Witness summons 15.6 CHC Software and related cases 15.7 Injunctions 15.8 Solicitors as officers of the court 15.9 Section 236 of the Insolvency Act 1986 15.10 Proprietary orders 15.11 Joinder 15.12 Bankers’ Books Evidence Act 1879 15.13 Unexplained wealth order (UWO) 15.14 Data Protection Act 2018 – Subject access requests 16 INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION 16.1 Background – limits on disclosure in support of arbitration 16.2 Norwich Pharmacal relief in an arbitration 16.3 Norwich Pharmacal relief in support of an arbitration 17 WHERE NEXT FOR NORWICH PHARMACAL? 17.1 The internet and social media 17.2 Unknown defendants 17.3 Extra-territorial reach 17.4 Policing Norwich Pharmacal relief 17.5 Collective redress 17.6 International fraud 17.7 Conclusion APPENDIX – SAMPLE ORDERS A Simple Norwich Pharmacal Order in respect of an identity B Bankers Trust Order Index