Irish High Court Extends Jurisdiction To Grant Norwich Pharmacal Orders

The High Court has granted a Norwich Pharmacal order, directing RTÉ (Ireland’s national public broadcaster) to disclose unedited footage captured as part of an undercover investigation into alleged failures of care at two Irish nursing homes.

This decision (Chief Inspector of Social Services v Raidió Teilifís Éireann [2026] IEHC 445) confirms that the courts have jurisdiction to grant Norwich Pharmacal orders to statutory regulators, even where there is not necessarily an intention to initiate civil proceedings against alleged wrongdoers. Notably, this decision confirms that Irish courts have discretion to order the disclosure of information beyond the mere identification of alleged wrongdoers.

Background

In June 2025, RTÉ broadcast a documentary depicting alleged serious failures of care at two nursing homes. The documentary contained edited footage gathered by undercover researchers as part of the broadcaster’s investigation. Prior to broadcasting the documentary, the broadcaster notified the Health Information Quality Authority (HIQA) of its concerns.

HIQA launched investigations into the care standards at both nursing homes shortly thereafter. However, HIQA considered that the complete, unedited footage obtained by the broadcaster was necessary to properly assess the matter.

RTÉ acknowledged the seriousness of the issues but declined to disclose the footage absent a court order on several grounds, including due to journalistic guidelines and confidentiality obligations, as well as data privacy concerns. As HIQA lacked the statutory power to compel the broadcaster to disclose the footage, an application was brought by the Chief Inspector of Social Services on behalf of HIQA seeking disclosure of the footage by way of a Norwich Pharmacal order.

What is a Norwich Pharmacal order?

A Norwich Pharmacal order is a type of pre-action disclosure order which was established by the seminal decision of the House of Lords in Norwich Pharmacal Co v Customs and Excise Commissioners [1974] AC 133. Essentially, the order requires a party who has become mixed up in the alleged wrongdoing of a third party (either innocently or knowingly) to disclose information which stands to assist in bringing proceedings against the alleged wrongdoer.

In Megaleasing UK Ltd v Barrett [1993] ILRM 497, the Irish Supreme Court confirmed that such jurisdiction exists as a matter of Irish common law and was founded on the court’s equitable jurisdiction. The test for granting a Norwich Pharmacal order was set out by the Court of Appeal in Blythe v The Commissioner of An Garda Síochána [2023] IECA 255 by reference to leading English authorities and can be summarised as follows:

1. The applicant must demonstrate a good, arguable case that a legally recognised wrong has been committed against them by a third party
2. The respondent must be “mixed up in” the wrongdoing so as to have facilitated the wrongdoing;
3. The respondent must be able, or likely to be able, to provide the information or documents necessary to enable the ultimate wrongdoer to be pursued
4. Requiring disclosure is appropriate and proportionate in all of the circumstances of the case, bearing in mind the exceptional but flexible nature of the jurisdiction

The Court’s decision

The High Court was satisfied that the applicant had fulfilled the four conditions outlined above and ordered the disclosure of the broadcaster’s unedited video footage.

Crucially, the Court found that it had jurisdiction to order the disclosure of information beyond revealing the identity of a wrongdoer, as has often been the case with Norwich Pharmacal applications in Ireland. Citing Blythe, the Court held that specific information may be disclosed where that information constitutes the “missing piece of the jigsaw”, which in this case, involved assessing whether further regulatory action would be warranted. However, the Court cautioned that ordering this type of disclosure should be exceptional.

Further, the Court concluded that the Norwich Pharmacal jurisdiction is not limited to the disclosure of information for the purpose of initiating civil proceedings and can be applied to assess potential regulatory action or for “pursuing another legitimate remedy” if “a strong public interest” can be established. It was determined that the public interest in enabling the applicant to exercise its statutory functions was sufficiently strong to justify disclosure and that doing so was proportionate in the circumstances.

As to the “mixed up in” condition of the test, the Court noted that in Blythe the Court of Appeal took a “causal approach” to this condition – namely, that a Norwich Pharmacal order should generally only be granted if the respondent had some involvement in the allegedly unlawful transaction such that, absent such involvement, the transaction would not have taken place in the manner that it did. Here, the Court noted that RTÉ was not actively engaged with the wrongdoing itself but was instead focused on recording and exposing the alleged wrongdoing. The Court concluded that the “mixed up in” condition was satisfied as a result, which is a departure from existing case law and observed as follows: “The Norwich Pharmacal jurisdiction is developed on an incremental basis. This case represents an appropriate incremental development of that jurisdiction.”

The judgment also examined the fourth condition of the test, characterised as “the overall justice condition”, and weighed up the various competing interests at play in the round. In doing so, significant weight was placed on the public interest in facilitating the Chief Inspector’s investigation of the potential regulatory breaches.

Practical implications

The decision does not alter the four-part test laid down by the Court of Appeal in Blythe but develops the jurisdiction by confirming that it is not limited to gathering information for potential court proceedings and can extend to regulatory investigations in appropriate circumstances. The judgment also clarifies that a Norwich Pharmacal order can direct disclosure aimed at assessing whether alleged wrongdoing took place, as opposed to the mere identification of alleged wrongdoers.

Further, the judgment indicates that a respondent which has played an active role in the investigation and/or reporting of alleged wrongdoing may be compelled to disclose information on foot of a Norwich Pharmacal order. This is an incremental expansion of this element of the test which generally required that the respondent must have played some kind of causal role in facilitating wrongdoing.

It remains to be seen the extent to which the decision will be limited to its facts and regulatory context, including the need to establish a strong public interest in obtaining the disclosure sought. Nevertheless, the decision marks a further expansion of the Norwich Pharmacal jurisdiction in Ireland and demonstrates the flexible nature of this remedy.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.