Changes in Norwich Pharmacal Orders?

(Posted on 02/03/11)

A recent judgment in a pornography case could very easily turn Norwich Pharmacal on its side. The case, Media CAT Ltd v. Adams & Ors, is leading some to believe additional steps will be added to anyone wishing to discover someone's identity; in this case, someone's internet identity.

A Norwich Pharmacal Order gives courts jurisdiction in demanding people to disclose another's identity when crucial to a court case. Before a Pharmacal Order is issued, however, solicitors must ensure all other avenues have been exhausted. It's saved for those most crucial cases where one's identity is the only thing that might further a case and those issues must be clear and evident. These are most often seen in tort claims, including those regarding intellectual property rights (copyright, etc.), breaches of contract and illegal disclosures of otherwise confidential information, such as a company's confidential and proprietary data.

The case, unfolding in a Patents County court, revolves around the speculative invoicing model and has been challenged from various standpoints. Groups have rallied together in recent months in an effort to ensure the rights of the innocent are protected. After this recent ruling that now comprises more than fifteen thousand words and addresses every single misrepresentation, misconstrued information and factual flaw in Andrew Crossley's pornography business model. In the final analysis, as with many things, it comes down to money.

Another unexpected repercussion is the hastily-written Digital Economy Act (DEA) will finally get the major overhaul it desperately needs. In fact, this is expected to undergo judicial review in March. The judge and his decision bought the key concepts of DEA to light.

For now, Norwich Pharmacal is safe; however, depending on the ultimate outcome of this case, along with the deeper analysis of DEA, there exists the policy of this order to undergo its own revisions.