High Court emphasises narrow scope of the "Norwich Pharmacal" jurisdiction

The High Court has refused to order a bank to disclose to fraud victims further customer account information, beyond documents already produced by the bank in response to an earlier Norwich Pharmacal order. In doing so, the court reiterated that the power to grant Norwich Pharmacal relief is an exceptional jurisdiction intended only for the focused disclosure of information necessary to enable a victim of wrongdoing to pursue legal redress: Hussey v Barclays Bank UK plc [2024] EWHC 2133 (Comm).

The decision will be of interest to financial institutions, particularly for the court's discussion of the use of such orders to provide information to public bodies. Amongst other points, it indicates that Norwich Pharmacal relief will not be justified merely because a claimant wants to provide the authorities with as much information as possible so as to encourage the authorities to take action.

In the present case, the claimants were beneficiaries under a deceased's estate in the USA. The executor of the estate initiated payments to certain UK bank accounts, purportedly belonging to the claimants. However, those transactions were said to have been fraudulently procured, in that the accounts were not those of the claimants. In 2023, the claimants obtained from the court (unopposed by the bank) a Norwich Pharmacal order requiring the bank to produce various information regarding the accounts, including details of the named account holders who were suspected to be involved in the fraud. Following the bank's production of documents, the claimants commenced the present proceedings seeking further Norwich Pharmacal orders, requiring additional information (including documents it asserted should have been produced under the 2023 Norwich Pharmacal order).

The court found that none of the further information was necessary for any of the wide-ranging purposes for which the claimants sought it – which was said to include not only pursuing the fraudsters (as is typical) but also to provide the information to the police and the Financial Conduct Authority, to make regulatory complaints against the bank, and possibly to bring a civil claim against it. In particular, the court did not accept the claimants' submission that the more information they could provide to the authorities, the greater their chance of persuading the authorities to take notice of their complaint and pursue it. That was not a sufficient justification to grant a Norwich Pharmacal order.

For more information, please see our Civil Fraud and Asset Tracing Notes blog post.