header-logo header-logo

11 February 2010 / Hugh Tomlinson KC , Anna Caddick
Issue: 7404 / Categories: Features , Commercial
printer mail-detail

An effective global remedy

Post Lockton, Anna Caddick & Hugh Tomlinson QC salute the flexibility of Norwich Pharmacal orders

Norwich Pharmacal orders are increasingly sought against internet service providers to discover the identity of individuals who use the internet anonymously as a tool to harass or defame. Although service providers do not usually contest the applications, they require court orders before disclosing the private contact details of their customers.

Where the service provider is based in England, or has business premises here, applications are usually straightforward. If the service provider has an anonymous customer who is, for example, sending abusive or threatening e-mails or making defamatory postings, then the court will order the disclosure of their name and contact details. However, the service providers that have access to the necessary information are often based in the US with no relevant English place of business. This applies, for example, to Twitter, Facebook, MySpace, Wikipedia and Google. These companies will usually not oppose orders being made but do not submit to the jurisdiction of the English courts.

A

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll