Global menu

Our global pages


NPO jurisdiction excluded where evidence sought in support of possible claims in foreign proceedings. High Court also confirms test for “good arguable case” and scope of NPOs

  • United Kingdom
  • Financial services disputes and investigations
  • Litigation and dispute management - Norwich Pharmacal Orders



Ramilos Trading Limited v Buyanovsky [2016] EWHC 3175 (Comm)

Facts of the case

– the Claimant (”C”) was a BVI company which sought a NPO against a British citizen resident in the UK (“D”) in relation to various claims, only one of which could be brought in the UK

– C’s draft NPO attached a six-page schedule containing 39 questions, many of which contained sub-questions 

– amongst others matters, the following matters fell for determination: (i) whether the NPO jurisdiction in relation to foreign proceedings is excluded by the statutory regime under the Evidence (Proceedings in Other Jurisdictions) Act 1975 the (“1975 Act”); (ii) whether C had a “good arguable” case in relation to the UK proceedings; and (iii) whether the scope of the application was within that permissible under the NPO jurisdiction

The decision

– in a lengthy and detailed judgement, Flaux J found against C on all three issues Question 1: relationship between the NPO jurisdiction and the 1975 Act 

– Flaux J concluded that the court did not have jurisdiction to grant a NPO in relation to foreign civil proceedings on the basis that: 

– the 1975 Act sets out the circumstances and procedures whereby the court will assist in obtaining evidence required for foreign proceedings

– there are substantial differences between this statutory regime and the NPO jurisdiction, including the requirement under the 1975 Act for a request for evidence to be made by a foreign court (as compared to it being made by the claimant/applicant in the case of a NPO) 

– accordingly, Parliament could not have intended the common law remedy to survive the introduction of the statutory scheme Question two: test for “good arguable case” 

– Flaux J confirmed that a “good arguable case” is one which is “more than barely capable of serious argument, and yet not necessarily one which the Judge believes to have a better than 50per cent chance of success”

– on the basis that C appeared to have sufficient information already to plead a case in relation to some of its claims, Flaux J found the application to be unnecessary and commented that C should get on with its case in whichever jurisdiction it could try its claim and await the normal process of disclosure Question 3: scope of NPOs 

– Flaux J noted that while the scope of NPOs had widened beyond just information as to the identity of the wrongdoer or information about them, NPOs remain an exceptional jurisdiction with a narrow scope. The court accordingly would not permit the jurisdiction to be used for wide-ranging disclosure such as that being sought by C

Analysis and practical advice 

– this judgment may not be the last word on the issue of the relationship between the NPO jurisdiction and the 1975 Act given Coulson’s J contrary decision in Shlaimoun v Mining Technologies International Inc [2011] EWHC 3278 (QB) and the basis on which Flaux J sought to distinguish it. The latter turned on:

– the respondent in Shlaimoun at the time not contemplating proceedings in a foreign jurisdiction, (however, Coulson J also commented that he could see no reason why a NPO application “should not be made in circumstances where there is the possibility that the ultimate proceedings would be commenced in a foreign jurisdiction”)

– the Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003 being equivalent to the 1975 Act and accordingly the Court of Appeal’s decision in R (Omar) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs [2013] EWCA Civ 188 (that there is a prohibition on the grant of a NPO in respect of foreign criminal proceedings) being applicable

– the case is also a reminder that NPO applications must be limited to information which is truly necessary, as opposed to a “fishing expedition” to establish whether or not the claimant has a good arguable case. Necessity remains a critcal threshold condition and, if not met, the application will be dismissed

– as with AB Bank Limited v Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank PJSC [2016] EWHC 2082 (see page 6) this case highlights the need for the respondent to carefully consider the scope of, and jurisdiction for, any NPO and whether it should be challenged