Dec 1
The claimant bank entered into an agreement with S, an electronic money issuer, under which the claimant gave instructions to transfer money in and out of accounts opened by S. S subsequently ceased trading and went into liquidation. The claimant contended that it was the owner of significant funds paid into S’s account with the defendant electronic money institution. It sought a Norwich Pharmacal order against the defendant for information relating to the account, contending the information was necessary for it to determine where its monies were and what claims to pursue against the defendant and/or S. The defendant submitted that Norwich Pharmacal relief was not available against the alleged underlying wrongdoer and that the claimant should instead have applied for pre-action information or disclosure from it under CPR r 31.16.
On the claim—
Held, claim dismissed. The wording of CPR r 31.6 and the case law did not suggest that the court’s jurisdiction to grant a Norwich Pharmacal order was ousted where the party being asked to provide the information might be the ultimate wrongdoer. However, the availability of alternative proceedings was relevant because it went to the question of whether relief was necessary, one of the threshold conditions for the grant of a Norwich Pharmacal order. In the present case, the claimant had failed to establish the threshold conditions for the grant of relief (paras 49–50, 76).
Per curiam. The outcome of an application for the two sorts of relief may be the same and there may be grounds, typically for case management reasons or because there is a strong case for a Norwich Pharmacal order, when the court may be willing to allow the application to be pursued on both grounds (para 50).
Simon Harding (instructed by Gunnercooke LLP) for the claimant.
Craig Ulyatt (instructed by Keystone Law) for the defendant.