header-logo header-logo

Norwich Pharmacal orders: still in vogue?

16 June 2017 / Jonathan Cohen
Issue: 7750 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail
nlj_7750_cohen

Flexible & adaptable to many situations, the Norwich Pharmacal order remains as useful as ever, says Jonathan Cohen

  • Norwich Pharmacal orders for disclosure are granted against third parties innocently caught up in wrongdoing.
  • They have widespread application and have been further developed in case law.

A Norwich Pharmacal order may be an old remedy, but it still has modern application. Its use in the past three years alone demonstrates its continuing flexibility. Norwich Pharmacal orders are court orders to disclose information or documents, granted against third parties who have become mixed up in wrongdoing through no fault of their own. They date back to a 1974 House of Lords case concerning the Norwich Pharmaceutical Company, Norwich Pharmacal v Customs and Excise Commissioners [1974] AC 133, [1973] 2 All ER 943.

The case

Norwich Pharmacal was the victim of a patent infringement. It knew 30 consignments of the compound, Furazolidone, which was covered by its patent, had been imported into the UK without licence and therefore in breach of

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

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll