Norwich Pharmacal Jurisdiction Cannot Be Deployed To Sharpen Your Case

A Norwich Pharmacal application sprouted in LCN Sapphire Trustee 1 Ltd & Anor v Wiseman & Ors [2025] EWHC 1839. No major surprises here from the judgment, as the case highlights that often in litigation, there are limits in how much preparation you can do before sharpening your pencil draft and looking to convert it into a permanent form, suitable for issuing legal proceedings.

In other words, sometimes you have to decide either to go all in or fold before you unleash those nuclear weapons already in your arsenal, even if they could do with some further enrichment.

The Claimants (“Cs”) were landlords who contend they are victims of an unlawful means conspiracy involving certain of the Defendants (“Ds”). A company, AAH, went into insolvent liquidation in April 2024 and was, according to Cs, allegedly involved in a conspiracy so that AAH could not pay rent to Cs.

The Norwich Pharmacal application involved Cs looking to hoover up information from Ds so that alleged wrongdoers could be pinpointed.

Ambit Of Norwich Pharmacal Jurisdiction

The judge appeared to suggest that the ambit of the Norwich Pharmacal jurisdiction did not appear to extend to enabling a claimant to elevate their position above the concomitant rights a litigant already enjoys in adversarial proceedings to obtain some litigation advantage. This is not unlike the utility of Section 236 of the Insolvency Act 1986 by a liquidator. You can use the section to put the company back into the knowledge position it was in before going into liquidation, but not to outflank equality of arms in litigation.

In highlighting the limits of the Norwich Pharmacal jurisdiction, the judge fleshed out a salutary warning, which incidentally might have merit featuring prominently at the front and back of any civil litigation court building, that litigants may seek to enter:

Litigation is an inherently risky enterprise, as is the process of converting judgments into economic value. A prospective claimant has to assess that risk and take their own course.

Many of the Ds sought to suggest the Cs were on a fishing expedition.

Judgment Highlights

It seems from the judgment that the judge was not overly convinced that the threshold was necessarily met to plead a conspiracy:

I am satisfied that it is not necessary in or to further the interests of justice to require any of the defendants to provide information or disclosure to enable the claimants to ‘sharpen up’ their proposed conspiracy claim, still less perfect it, before pleading it out in any claim they may decide to commence.

Despite Mr McLeod’s tenacious and indeed gracious submissions in the face of my expressed reservations, I am not persuaded that the claimants are languishing in the dark as to who they say must have been in this alleged conspiracy or how it was carried out in practical or legal terms. They can start an action if they choose to do so and have a number of years remaining on the limitation period in which to do so.

….

… I am not persuaded, as I have to be, that Norwich Pharmacal relief is justified as necessary in order for the claimants to identify key alleged wrongdoers and/or wrongdoing so as to make an informed decision about whether to sue in conspiracy within the limitation period.