Pre-action disclosure/Norwich Pharmacal

This Overview sets out considerations for practitioners to consider prior to the commencement of proceedings in seeking the early disclosure of documents either as a pre-action disclosure application or under a Norwich Pharmacal route.

Prospective parties may:

  1. be required to give disclosure under the appropriate pre-action protocol, see Practice Note: The pre-action protocols and when they apply

  2. wish to apply to the court for an order for pre-action disclosure under CPR 31.16—see below

  3. wish to apply for a Norwich Pharmacal order—see below

The guidance within this topic also includes the following which may be relevant:

  1. Practice Notes:

    1. Disclosure by a non-party—Rule 31.17—which looks at third party disclosure under CPR 31.17 and 31.18, ie obtaining disclosure of documents from a third party or non-party to the proceedings pre-action or post issue

    2. Use of confidential information in civil proceedings—which considers confidential information including what it is, who it belongs to and how to protect it

    3. Dispute resolution—data protection and GDPR considerations—which looks at the provisions of the General Data Protection Regulation, Regulation

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest PI & Clinical Negligence News

The English Court’s powers to issue injunctive reliefs aimed at preserving arbitral confidentiality. (A Corporation v Firm B and another)

Arbitration analysis: This case arises from the claimant’s application for interim injunctive reliefs (the ‘Application’) seeking, among others, to restrain the first defendant (‘Firm B’), including any of its branches from (i) acting for Corporation C in an ongoing arbitration against Corporation D (the ‘Second Arbitration’); and (ii) providing any confidential information from a previous arbitration between the Claimant and Corporation B (the ‘First Arbitration’), to Corporation C. In determining the Application, the Court considered the principles governing the grant of interim reliefs as established in American Cyanamid v Ethicon Ltd. The court also considered the boundaries of arbitral confidentiality by considering what documents and information the obligation of arbitral confidentiality covers, and the relevant exceptions to this obligation. The court concluded that the claimant was not entitled to the requested reliefs. After examining the claimant's allegations of breaches of arbitral confidentiality, the court found no breach, except for some limited settlement information from the First Arbitration. The court was also not persuaded that there was a real risk of confidential information being transferred between Firm B’s London and Asia offices. Consequently, the court decided that granting the injunction would significantly prejudice Firm B and Corporation C, while not granting it would cause no prejudice to the claimant and only minimal prejudice to Corporation D. Written by Dr. Ademola Bamgbose, solicitor advocate and senior associate at Hogan Lovells, London and IfeOluwa Alabi, associate at Hogan Lovells, London.

View PI & Clinical Negligence by content type :

Popular documents