Ziyavudin Magomedov & Ors v Konstantin Kuzovkov & Ors
[2024] EWHC 2527 (Comm)
Linda May Green v CT Group Holdings Limited
11 December 2023
[2023] EWHC 3168 (Comm)
High Court
Someone claimed forged bank documents were used against them in court. They tried to find out who made the fakes using a special court order (Norwich Pharmacal relief). The judge said no because the information wouldn't help and rules prevent using that order for evidence in other countries' cases.
Key Facts
- •Linda Green (Claimant) sought Norwich Pharmacal relief against CT Group Holdings Ltd (Defendant) for information about the source of allegedly forged documents.
- •The documents, provided to Mishcon de Reya (MdR) by CT Group, purported to show Green receiving substantial sums of money.
- •Green denies the transactions and claims the documents are forgeries, a claim supported by several banks.
- •CT Group engaged a former intelligence operative in Russia (Person A) to obtain the information, who in turn used an unknown source.
- •CT Group contends the documents are genuine, and that they have launched separate proceedings in New York to verify the documents' authenticity.
- •The Claimant had obtained permission from the Jersey and Guernsey Royal Courts to use certain documents in the Channel Islands Proceedings for the purposes of this claim. The Claimant gave undertakings not to commence proceedings in reliance on documents or information obtained from this Norwich Pharmacal application without the permission of the Jersey court other than making a criminal complaint.
Legal Principles
Norwich Pharmacal relief requires four conditions: (1) a good arguable case of legally recognised wrong; (2) the respondent being mixed up in the wrongdoing; (3) the respondent possessing necessary information; (4) disclosure being appropriate and proportionate.
Collier v. Bennett [2020] EWHC 1884 (QB)
The Norwich Pharmacal jurisdiction cannot be used to obtain evidence for use in foreign civil proceedings or in connection with criminal proceedings or investigations abroad, as this is covered by statutory schemes (Evidence (Proceedings in Other Jurisdictions) Act 1975 and Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003).
Regina (Omar) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs 2014 QB 112; Singularis Holdings Ltd v PricewaterhouseCoopers 2015 AC 1675; Ramilos Trading Ltd v Buyanovsky [2016] 2 CLC 896
In Norwich Pharmacal applications, the purpose for which information is sought is essential. A 'wait and see' approach to purpose is not sufficient, particularly in multi-jurisdictional cases.
Burford Capital Ltd v. London Stock Exchange Group Plc [2020] EWHC 1183 (Comm)
The court should consider various factors in determining whether to grant Norwich Pharmacal relief, including the strength of the applicant's case, public interest, potential for deterrence, availability of other sources, respondent's knowledge, confidentiality, and privacy rights.
Rugby Football Union v Consolidated Information Services Ltd [2012] UKSC 55
Outcomes
The Claimant's application for Norwich Pharmacal relief was dismissed.
The court found that the Claimant failed to demonstrate a legitimate purpose for the application, given the Omar line of authority prohibiting the use of Norwich Pharmacal relief to obtain evidence for use in foreign proceedings. The court also found that the application would not serve a useful purpose, given the strong evidence of forgery and the difficulty in obtaining useful information from the intermediary involved. The court considered the Overall Justice Condition was not satisfied.