The recent High Court decision in Hussey & Ors v Barclays Bank UK Plc [2024] EWHC 2133 (Comm) underscores the cautious and exceptional nature of Norwich Pharmacal orders.

As experts in complex litigation and disclosure remedies, this case demonstrates principles we at Economou & Co LLC have effectively applied in similar high-stakes scenarios.

Case Overview

The claim arose from allegations of fraud involving the estate of Ms. Bean, where beneficiaries sought further disclosure from Barclays Bank under the Norwich Pharmacal jurisdiction.

They argued that additional documents were crucial for pursuing complaints with regulatory bodies and potential claims against wrongdoers.

Key Takeaways from the Judgment

1. Exceptional Nature of Norwich Pharmacal Orders:

• The court reiterated that Norwich Pharmacal orders are tools of last resort, intended to assist in identifying wrongdoers or securing information essential for specific claims.
• They are not designed for general evidence-gathering or for fishing expeditions.

2. Strict Adherence to Legal Principles:

• Applying the framework set out in Collier v Bennett [2020], he court highlighted four key conditions for granting a Norwich Pharmacal order:

• A Recognized Wrong: A good arguable case of wrongdoing must exist.
• Involvement by the Respondent: The respondent must be sufficiently "mixed up" in the wrongdoing.
• Possession of Relevant Information: The respondent must hold information necessary for the claimant.
• Proportionality: The order must be an appropriate and proportionate response.

• Disclosure requests were rejected where the connection to actionable claims was tenuous, underscoring the narrow scope of this jurisdiction

3. Alternative Remedies Available:

• The court noted that public bodies like the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and police possess their own investigative powers, making additional court-ordered disclosure redundant in some cases.
• The defendant's prior reporting of potential fraud to authorities further reduced the need for additional disclosure

4. Strategic Use of Interim Remedies:

• The court’s decision serves as a critical reminder of the importance of framing applications narrowly and strategically, ensuring alignment with the remedy's purpose.

Substantive Observations from the Judgment

The court dealt with multiple specific disclosure requests from the claimants, including additional bank statements, account holder addresses, and VAT registration details. These were refused on the grounds that:

• The claimants already possessed sufficient information to pursue their concerns with regulatory bodies or make actionable claims.
• The information sought, such as the form of bank statements or additional personal details, was not necessary for advancing their claims or reporting fraud.
• The Norwich Pharmacal jurisdiction could not be used to bypass investigatory powers already available to regulatory authorities.

The court emphasized that Norwich Pharmacal orders are not a substitute for other legal processes, such as pre-action disclosure or regulatory investigations.

Our Expertise in Disclosure and Interim Remedies

At Economou & Co LLC, we have extensive experience navigating complex financial disputes and leveraging disclosure mechanisms effectively.

As highlighted in our guide in relation to the interim orders in Cyprus, these strategic tools, when applied with precision, can be a game-changer in high-stakes litigation.

Our deep understanding of cross-jurisdictional remedies, including Norwich Pharmacal orders, ensures that we approach every case with the tactical sophistication required to achieve favourable outcomes for our clients.