knowledge 9 September 2026 |

Norwich Pharmacal Relief: A development of the High Court’s jurisdiction

Background

In June 2025, RTÉ broadcast a television programme, RTÉ Investigates: Inside Ireland’s Nursing Homes which included edited undercover footage exposing alleged poor care practices in two Irish nursing homes.  The applicant, the Chief Inspector of Social Services sought access to the complete unedited footage to assess compliance with the Health Act 2007, 2013 Regulations and national standards, and to inform any regulatory action.  RTÉ refused, absent a court order.  The Chief Inspector of Social Services brought an application for an NPO, and RTÉ maintained a neutral position (i.e. it neither consented nor objected) in relation to the reliefs being sought.

The test for granting a NPO was set out by the Court of Appeal in Blythe v the Commissioner of An Garda Siochána [2023] IECA 255.  Four conditions must be satisfied before an NPO will be granted:

1. The Arguable Wrong Condition: the applicant has to demonstrate a good arguable case that a form of legally recognised wrong has been committed against them by a person
2. The “Mixed Up In” Condition: the respondent to the application must be mixed up in so as to have facilitated the wrongdoing.
3. The Possession Condition: the respondent to the application must be able, or likely to be able, to provide the information or documents necessary to enable the ultimate wrongdoer to be pursued.
4. The Overall Justice Condition: requiring disclosure from the respondent is an appropriate and proportionate response in all the circumstances of the case, bearing in mind the exceptional but flexible nature of the jurisdiction.

High Court Findings

1. The Court was satisfied that the applicant had fulfilled the four conditions outlined above and ordered disclosure of RTÉ’s unedited video footage.
2. Traditionally Irish Courts have generally granted NPOs in circumstances connected with the institution or pursuit of legal proceedings.  The question of whether the jurisdiction extends to disclosure sought for other purposes remained uncertain.  However, here the Court accepted that seeking disclosure for the purposes of informing potential regulatory investigation and enforcement, where there is a strong public interest, constituted a legitimate remedy capable of engaging the NPO jurisdiction.
3. NPOs are typically sought to identify an unknown wrongdoer.  However, the Court found that it had jurisdiction to order the disclosure of information beyond revealing the identity of a wrongdoer.
4. In this case RTÉ had not facilitated the alleged wrongdoing but instead focused on recording and exposing the alleged wrongdoing.  Nevertheless, the Court concluded that the “mixed up in” condition was satisfied on the facts.  In the Court’s view, RTÉ was more than a mere bystander, it had been “actively engaged, not in the wrongdoing itself but in the investigation, recording and exposure of the wrongdoing”.  In this regard the Court observed “The Norwich Pharmacal jurisdiction is developed on an incremental basis.  This case represents an appropriate incremental development of that jurisdiction”.

Conclusion

It remains to be seen the extent to which the decision will be limited to its facts and regulatory context.  Nevertheless, the decision signals a judicial willingness to incrementally develop the NPO jurisdiction.