Asset Recovery: A Broadening Of The Norwich Pharmacal Order Jurisdiction In Ireland?

A Norwich Pharmacal Order (NPO) is an equitable remedy which compels a respondent to disclose certain information in its possession in respect of an anonymous wrongdoer. It can be a valuable legal tool in assisting with asset recovery.

The Court of Appeal in Blythe v The Commissioner of An Garda Síochána[2023] IECA 255 commented that the existence of NPOs as a form of relief is deeply entrenched but there remains significant uncertainty as to the proper parameters of the jurisdiction. A number of recent judgments have, however, provided some helpful clarification of the position in Ireland.

Valuable Relief

A NPO can be an effective relief as it facilitates victims of alleged wrongdoing in asserting their legal rights and it can apply to a wide range of claims, as illustrated by recent cases before the Irish courts.

• In Electricity Supply Board & anor v Richmond Homes & anor [2023] IEHC 571, the High Court granted an NPO to the ESB directing that the respondents (a construction company and a development company) disclose certain information in relation to payments allegedly sought by ESB staff members in exchange for immediate or expedited completion of routine works.
• In Digital Rights Ireland CLG v Discord Inc [2023] IEHC 573, the Commercial Court granted a NPO directing the disclosure of information which might identify persons who posted images of six women, without their consent, on the respondent's website. This relief was sought to enable the plaintiff to launch an action in a representative capacity pursuant to Article 80(1) GDPR on behalf of the women affected.
• In the Blythe judgment, the Court of Appeal upheld a High Court order granting the plaintiff, a former member of An Garda Síochána (AGS), a NPO for the disclosure, by the Garda Commissioner, of certain information relating to comments and photographs circulating on WhatsApp groups comprised of members of AGS, which were allegedly defamatory in nature.
• In Boulbet v Sumup Ltd. [2025] IEHC 285, the High Court granted a NPO and a Bankers Trust Order (which allows for pre-action discovery of a range of documents) to a plaintiff who was seeking to recover misappropriated funds, after he had been duped on two occasions to invest in various financial products by individuals purporting to represent financial institutions.

When will a NPO be granted?

While NPOs can assist parties in the pursuit of a legal remedy, the courts, in considering their scope and exercise, also consider that such an order can involve the involuntary imposition of disclosure obligations on a third party against whom no claim is made. The courts, therefore, require that the application of NPOs be subject to necessity and proportionality safeguards, with a requirement for it to balance the competing interests of the parties.

In Blythe, the court held that a NPO will not be granted unless the court is satisfied that;

• the information sought is likely to be in the possession of the defendant;
• the information is necessary for the purposes of bringing court proceedings (or the pursuit of some other legitimate remedy); and
• the applicant has no other practicable or more appropriate means of obtaining that information.

Requirement to Demonstrate Wrongdoing

Further, the court must critically assess the intended claim and satisfy itself that it has real substance and is not speculative or vexatious. The Court of Appeal in Blythe held that an applicant for a NPO must demonstrate that he or she has a "strong case" against the alleged wrongdoer that is "likely to succeed at trial".

Necessity for the Application

In the ESB judgment, the court held that the fact the defendants had already provided the names of four alleged wrongdoers did not render the application unnecessary in circumstances where confirmation was not given that they were the only alleged wrongdoers and there was clear evidence of wrongdoing by other persons. The court further held that the provision of those names was essential to enable proceedings to be brought against the alleged wrongdoers, thus making the application necessary. It also found that there was a significant public interest in ensuring similar wrongdoing is deterred in the future.

The Extent of Disclosure Permitted

As such, while it is clear that NPOs are an available remedy under Irish law, what has been less certain is the extent of disclosure available. Traditionally, the jurisdiction has been limited to information relating to the identity of a wrongdoer. However, in the ESB judgment, the court considered that there is authority to allow for a broader order, in an appropriate case, albeit any extension of the jurisdiction must be incremental.

• The court in that case, weighing all factors together with the imperative that any order be proportionate and that the jurisdiction be exercised sparingly, held the balance favoured disclosure of the names of any individuals who demanded or received payment. Further, in an extension of the jurisdiction beyond identification related information, the court also directed that the dates and amounts of payments be provided so as to enable compliance with Order 19 R5(2) Rules of the Superior Courts, which requires that particulars must be pleaded in proceedings that allege fraud. However, the court held that the plaintiffs had not established that the disclosure of other information sought, including the method of payment and the place of payment, was necessary for the proper institution of the proceedings. The court also refused to direct disclosure of the consideration for the payments or the actions taken in return for the payments on this basis.
• In Blythe, the Court of Appeal, in considering whether the jurisdiction extends beyond the identity of the alleged wrongdoer to a 'missing piece of the jigsaw' needed to confirm that an actionable wrong has been committed, noted it must be limited to disclosure for the purposes of bringing a claim and would not extend to the disclosure of material required to prove that claim. That would be a matter for discovery in the ordinary way.
• In the 2025 Boulbet case, disclosure was notably extended when the High Court ordered that in addition to the provision of names, dates of birth and contact information of the persons who opened the relevant bank accounts, the plaintiff should also be provided with identification documents, including photographs. The court opined that it was necessary to recognise the digital world in which we live and a photograph of the individual who opened the account would be of far greater assistance in leading to the location of the funds in question rather than a name or contact details. The High Court held that extending the equitable jurisdiction to include such a document would be "just and convenient", with the interests of disclosure far outweighing the interests of the perpetrators.

When NPOs are granted, the information is provided subject to appropriate undertakings to ensure it can only be used by the plaintiff for the purposes of the underlying claim.

Conclusion

NPO's are a very useful remedy to enable a plaintiff to seek redress against previously unknown wrongdoers. The recent judgments discussed in this article illustrate the willingness of the courts to assist a party in vindicating its legal rights against unidentified wrongdoers. They also indicate that there is scope for an extension of the jurisdiction but this must be viewed in the context of the emphasis placed on the exceptional nature of the jurisdiction, the need for proportionality and the fact the relief must be sparingly exercised.

Of particular note to legal practitioners were comments by the High Court in the ESB case that the reliefs being sought should be specified with precision in order for the court and the respondent to know what is in fact being sought. While the court, in the ESB case, did not consider the lack of specificity in the reliefs being sought sufficient to dismiss the application, it noted that it may be relevant to costs. The court in Blythe also referred to the duty of candour and good faith on the applicant given that the applications are made in the absence of the person(s) most likely to be affected by the order being sought.

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.