High Court Rules on Norwich Pharmacal Orders, Freedom of Expression, and Malicious Falsehood in Hayes v The Liberal Democrats: Key Legal Principles Clarified

Citation: [2023] EWHC 3166 (KB)
Judgment on


The High Court of Justice has made a significant ruling in the case of Josephine Mary Hayes v The Liberal Democrats & Anor, which serves as an important touchstone for legal professionals in understanding the current position on Norwich Pharmacal orders, the requirement for a good arguable case, freedom of expression, privacy interests, and the standards for proving torts such as malicious falsehood and harassment. This analysis aims to dissect the judgment to extract and clarify the pivotal legal principles that were applied.

Key Facts

Josephine Mary Hayes, a practising barrister, had been subjected to a series of anonymous complaints within the Liberal Democrats, as well as contentious interactions on Twitter. She sought to unearth the identities of the individuals behind these actions by issuing a claim and a subsequent application for a Norwich Pharmacal order against the Liberal Democrats and Mr. Dudhill. The application was, however, dismissed by Master McCloud, leading to Hayes’ appeal on multiple grounds including whether the judge erred in dismissing the order for lack of sufficient arguable case and whether the appeal was necessary and proportionate.

Several legal principles were at the core of the appeal:

  1. Norwich Pharmacal order: A disclosure order that may compel a third party “mixed up” in wrongdoing to reveal the wrongdoer’s identity.
  2. Freedom of Expression and Privacy (ECHR Articles 10 and 8): The balance between the right to impart information freely and the right to private life must be struck. Disclosure orders must be necessary and proportionate.
  3. Malicious Falsehood: Requires the malicious publication of a falsehood intending to cause damage.
  4. Conspiracy: An agreement to injure the claimant, with resulting damage.
  5. Harassment: Must satisfy a threshold of severity, potentially involving malice and causing tangible harm.
  6. Costs: Typically awarded to the successful party unless departure from the general rule is justified.
  7. Good Arguable Case: A necessary criterion for the success of a Norwich Pharmacal application, involving a coherent factual and legal argument suggesting wrongdoing.


The analysis of the appeal hinged particularly on the appellant’s inability to prove a ‘good arguable case’ for the alleged wrongs, which is a threshold requirement for granting a Norwich Pharmacal order. The court clarified that speculative claims, absent concrete, supporting evidence, do not meet this threshold. Further, the court underscored that even if potential damage or malice could be inferred from the actions in question, these alone do not prove an intent to cause harm as required for malicious falsehood or conspiracy.

The court discussed freedom of expression stating that the identities of individuals communicating anonymously fall within the ambit of this right. Any order compelling their disclosure must be justified as a necessary and proportionate measure.

Significantly, the court found that the general cost rules should apply, resulting in the unsuccessful party—the appellant—bearing the costs of the successful parties, Mr. Dudhill and the Liberal Democrats.


The decision underscores the court’s cautious and balanced approach towards ordering the disclosure of identities in cases involving anonymous communications. It emphasizes the necessity to prove actual wrongdoing with tangible harm, rather than allegations founded on suppositions or indirect inferences. The ruling provides clarity to legal professionals in crafting a solid foundation for claim arguments, especially in the context of Norwich Pharmacal orders and cases implicating privacy and freedom of expression rights. It also reaffirms the principle that speculative claims hold little weight against the value of anonymity sanctioned by a public interest policy, like the complaints process of a political party. The outcome reiterates the legal adage that costs follow the event, denoting that the loser of litigation generally bears the costs.

Related Summaries