Lockton Companies International and Others v Persons Unknown and Google Inc.
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | MR JUSTICE EADY |
| Judgment Date | 23 November 2009 |
| Neutral Citation | [2009] EWHC 3423 (QB) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Date | 23 November 2009 |
| Docket Number | Claim No HQ09005155 |
[2009] EWHC 3423 (QB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Before: Mr Justice Eady
Claim No HQ09005155
Mr Hugh Tomlinson QC (instructed by Olswang LLP) appeared on behalf of the Claimants
The Defendants were unrepresented
Monday 23 November 2009
MR JUSTICE EADY:
There are two questions which arise before me today on this application by Mr Tomlinson QC on behalf of the proposed claimants. The first relates to jurisdiction. Norwich Pharmacal relief is sought against Google Inc, which is based in the United States. They are registered in Delaware and are physically present in California. There has been communication with Google, which has indicated that it will comply with the requirements but does not accept the jurisdiction of the court and therefore I need to consider whether it is appropriate to grant permission to serve out against Google Inc.
My attention has been drawn to Practice Direction B3.1(3) and submissions have been made in the light of that, in particular to the effect that the first defendants (ie Persons Unknown) are likely to be in this jurisdiction from the nature of the offending communications in respect of which it is sought to bring proceedings against them. The recipients are in the jurisdiction. They would appear to be employees of an English company and the content of the offending e-mails relates to an English company and to its employees. It is therefore submitted that it is reasonable to infer that once the offending person or persons have been identified, service will be effected on them within the jurisdiction.
It is said that the second defendant (ie Google Inc) is a necessary and proper party to the claim. That is because it is submitted to be necessary to obtain an order against it to disclose information which would lead to the identification of the persons unknown who constitute the first defendants.
Norwich Pharmacal relief is regarded as substantive relief and therefore the application does not offend against the principle that one cannot assert jurisdiction against a party resident abroad purely...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
AB Bank Ltd, Off-Shore Banking Unit (OBU) v Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank PJSC
...counsel for ADCB Dubai, is that a claim for a Norwich Pharmacal order is a claim for substantive relief; see Lockton Companies International & Others v Persons Unknown and Google [2009] EWHC 3423 (QB). The relief sought, that is, the making of the Norwich Pharmacal order, is the final relie......
-
Towergate Underwriting Group Ltd v Albaco Insurance Brokers Ltd
...sought in a Norwich Pharmacal application is not ancillary, but substantive: see egLockton Company International v Persons Unknown [2009] EWHC 3423 (QB). For a third, the applicant is required, as part of the ' price' for the interlocutory injunction or order, to give an undertaking to issu......