CASE HUB See further, timeline Case facts Outline Commission Article 101 TFEU investigation into Cermaq, Grieg Seafood, Bremnes, Lerøy, Mowi and SalMar (AT.40606). Latest development On 25 January 2024, the Commission issued a statement of objections addressed to Cermaq, Grieg Seafood, Bremnes, Lerøy, Mowi and SalMar (AT.40606). Parties • Cermaq, Grieg Seafood, Bremnes, Lerøy, Mowi and SalMar Background On 19 February 2019, the Commission carried out unannounced inspections in several Member States at the premises of several companies in the

A ‘Norwich Pharmacal Order’ is an order for the disclosure of documents or information from a respondent who is ‘mixed up’ in wrongdoing. There must be the need for an order to enable action to be brought against the ultimate wrongdoer. A common example of its use is to obtain the IP address of a registered user of a website where unlawful peer-to-peer file sharing has taken place.

This Practice Note considers some of the specific issues that may arise in the context of Norwich Pharmacal applications against online service providers. For further information regarding the general principles relating to Norwich Pharmacal Orders (NPOs), see Practice Note: Norwich Pharmacal orders (NPOs). The ability to act anonymously via the internet is often exploited to undertake unlawful acts, such as infringing intellectual property rights or publishing defamatory comments. At the same time, with every click of the mouse or swipe of our smartphone, a digital footprint is usually left, even where done with the intention of acting anonymously. The ability to match that digital footprint to the alleged wrongdoer often requires the disclosure of identifying information held by online service providers. For example: • defamatory posts published on a website―website operators will often require users to register their details (eg name, address, email) in order to publish content on their site. The website may also log the internet protocol (IP) address

Why apply for a Norwich Pharmacal Order? A Norwich Pharmacal Order (NPO) is a useful tool for obtaining information which might not otherwise be available to allow a party to commence and pursue a claim, particularly concerning the identity of a potential defendant. If a third party is in possession of information about a potential defendant party and is mixed up in the alleged wrongdoing (although, most usually, not liable itself), then it may be possible to obtain an NPO against that third party to provide the information under the equitable jurisdiction of the court. For further information on the jurisdiction of the court to order an NPO, see Practice Notes: Norwich Pharmacal orders (NPOs) and Norwich Pharmacal orders—making an application. The third column can be used to record observations or comments as the Checklist is worked through. Checklist Further information Notes (if any) Considerations before applying ☐ Consider whether an NPO is the most appropriate option available. A party should not apply for an NPO if the identity of the potential defendant is known but there is insufficient

This Practice Note explains Norwich Pharmacal Orders (NPOs), ie what they are and when they can be used. In particular, it examines the requirements which need to be met, ie a ‘wrong’ must have been carried out, or ‘arguably carried out’ by an ultimate wrongdoer, the applicant must be genuinely intending to seek redress for the arguable wrongs, the person against whom the order is sought must be involved in the wrongdoing, they cannot be a mere witness, an NPO must be a necessary and proportionate response in all the circumstances and finally it must be appropriate for the court to exercise its discretion. This Practice Note also considers the consequences of non-compliance, the use of information obtained under an NPO in other proceedings and Norwich Pharmacal relief in relation to disclosure required for foreign proceedings. It also looks at discharging or setting aside an NPO. For information on making an application for an NPO and the position as to costs, see Practice Notes: Norwich Pharmacal orders—making an application and Costs orders—Norwich

This Practice Note considers the use of Norwich Pharmacal orders (NPOs) in cross-border disputes. For guidance on: • the principles of NPOs, see Practice Note: Norwich Pharmacal orders (NPOs) • making an application for an NPO, see Practice Note: Norwich Pharmacal orders—making an application Norwich Pharmacal relief in support of foreign proceedings For a number of years, it was assumed that Norwich Pharmacal relief was available in aid of actual or anticipated foreign proceedings without the Evidence (Proceedings in Other Jurisdictions) Act 1975 (E(POJ)A 1975) imposing any sort of impediment. In Shlaimoun v Mining Technologies International Inc (2011), the judge did not consider that the statutory regime under E(POJ)A 1975 excluded Norwich Pharmacal relief. Rather, he contemplated that the Act and the Norwich Pharmacal jurisdiction provided parallel or complementary procedures for obtaining documents subsequently deployed in foreign proceedings. See News Analysis: Court gives guidance on using documents obtained under a Norwich Pharmacal Order in subsequent foreign proceedings (Shlaimoun & Anor v Mining Technologies International). However, in Ramilos Trading Ltd v Buyanovsky (2016), it was held

This Practice Note provides guidance on making an application for a Norwich Pharmacal order (NPO) for the disclosure of documents in civil proceedings. It sets out pre-application considerations and explains the different ways in which an application should be made, whether through a Part 8 or Part 7 claim, or a Part 23 application. This Practice Note provides guidance on the interpretation and application of the relevant provisions of the CPR. Depending on the court in which the matter is proceeding, you may also need to consider additional provisions—see: Court specific guidance below. This Practice Note provides guidance on how to make an application for an NPO for the disclosure of documents in civil proceedings. The following may also be of assistance: • for guidance on what an NPO is and when they can be used, see Practice Note: Norwich Pharmacal orders (NPOs) • for insight into the key points to consider when applying for an NPO, see: Norwich Pharmacal Orders—checklist • consider whether the intended proceedings might be subject to the disclosure scheme operating

TMT analysis: The High Court has granted applications for Norwich Pharmacal relief and pre-action disclosure in this libel claim. The court held that the defendant was to provide the successful claimants with the identity of the author of the tweets at issue, as well as copies of the tweets.

TMT analysis: On an application for a Norwich Pharmacal order to reveal identifying information about online reviewers, the court examined the guiding principles and refused the relief. It confirms that even where the threshold tests are met (ie an arguable wrong, the order is needed, and the subject of it facilitated the wrongdoing and can provide the information sought), the court (in the exercise of its discretion) will only make an order if it is necessary and proportionate in all the circumstances. Importantly, Norwich Pharmacal orders will not be granted to strip away anonymity unless justice requires it (and not to enable revenge or retribution). Written by Danielle Carr, partner at Rosenblatt.

The principle of construction (or interpretation) of statutes and other documents that the meaning of words should be identified by reference to other words in the context of which they appear.

The status of a life policy where an application has been made by an individual, the life company has offered terms to the individual; and the individual then decides for whatever reason not to proceed with the policy.

Not guilty is a plea or verdict indicating that a defendant is not to be convicted of the criminal charge before the court. In practical terms, a not guilty plea requires the prosecution to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt; if the prosecution fails to do so, the court or jury returns a not guilty verdict and the accused is acquitted.The expression is widely used across criminal procedure in England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Ireland, and is reflected in statutory and procedural rules (for example, Criminal Procedure Rules and equivalent provisions), rather than being given a single codified definition. Its effect is that no criminal liability is established for the charge in question, and-in general-double jeopardy rules prevent the defendant from being tried again for the same offence, subject to limited statutory exceptions.Usage is broadly consistent across the four jurisdictions, though procedural terminology differs: for example, in Scotland, not guilty is one of the three possible verdicts (alongside guilty and not proven), but an acquittal follows both not guilty and not proven verdicts.