What is a Norwich Pharmacal Order?
A Norwich Pharmacal Order (“NPO”) is a court-ordered remedy compelling a third party to disclose information that can identify a wrongdoer. The equitable remedy originated from the landmark 1974 UK case of Norwich Pharmacal Co v Customs and Excise Commissioners. This was introduced to help claimants hold wrongdoers accountable, even when their identity is unknown.
In Ireland, the principles of the Norwich Pharmacal case were endorsed in Megaleasing UK Ltd v Barrett, establishing NPOs as a powerful, adaptable tool in Irish law. NPOs are particularly valuable in defamation cases involving anonymity. As seen in the Tattle Life case, NPOs can be critical in unmasking anonymous posters. These orders are granted only when necessary and in the interests of justice, often overcoming defences relied upon by intermediaries. For example, the ‘hosting defence’, which exempts intermediaries from liability if they promptly remove defamatory content once notified, or the defence of ‘innocent publication’, which protects internet service providers acting as intermediaries rather than publishers.
Obtaining a NPO – Requirements in Ireland
The requirements for obtaining a NPO in Ireland were clarified by Mr Justice Maurice Collins, in the Court of Appeal in 2023 in Blythe v Commissioner of An Garda Síochána. The applicant must meet the following criteria:
1) Arguable Wrongdoing: The applicant must demonstrate a strong case likely to succeed at trial.
2) Mixed Up In: The respondent must have been involved in or facilitated the wrongdoing.
3) Possession: The respondent must possess or likely possess the necessary information, which is essential for pursuing legal proceedings.
4) Proportionality: Disclosure must be a proportionate response, balancing the applicant’s right to an effective remedy against the respondent’s privacy or competing interests.
5) Good Faith and Candour: The applicant must act in good faith and provide open disclosure.
6) Costs: Where the respondent is not the wrongdoer, they should be entitled to their costs from the applicant.
These principles ensure NPOs remain a proportionate and just remedy. In ESB v Richmond Homes, the High Court extended the scope of NPOs beyond identifying wrongdoers, ordering the disclosure of financial details necessary to plead a fraud claim. This demonstrates the evolving application of NPOs in Ireland to meet the needs of justice.
The Development of NPOs in Ireland
The 2016 Law Reform Commission report suggested reforms, including allowing anonymous wrongdoers to make representations before orders are granted, and addressing the high costs of NPOs. Currently, NPOs are limited to the Superior Courts, making them financially prohibitive for many litigants. Courts also vary in awarding costs, depending on whether defendants were innocently involved in wrongdoing or actively resisted disclosure. While costs may sometimes be recoverable from the wrongdoer, the financial burden remains a significant barrier to accessing justice through NPOs.
The Defamation (Amendment) Bill 2024, which was recently passed by the Dáil on 2 July 2025, proposes significant developments for NPOs in Ireland, including a statutory basis allowing both the Circuit and High Court to grant NPOs in defamation cases. This reform aims to make the process more accessible and cost-effective, particularly for identifying anonymous publishers of defamatory content. Irish courts currently take a more restrictive approach to NPOs compared to jurisdictions like England & Wales. However, there is a willingness to extend their scope where necessary, as seen in ESB v Richmond Homes, where a NPO required disclosure of both the identities and financial details of alleged wrongdoers. The Bill reflects the evolving role of NPOs in balancing competing rights, such as privacy and access to justice, with courts carefully weighing proportionality. Recent cases including Muwema v Facebook Ireland Ltd underscore the delicate balance courts must strike, particularly where disclosure may have unintended consequences, such as endangering individuals.
Conclusion
The proposed statutory framework under the Bill reflects the increasing importance of NPOs in balancing privacy rights with access to justice, particularly in the online age and the anonymity it can offer.
