COMMERCIAL LAW Norwich Pharmacal Order
A case came before the High Court for a Norwich Pharmacal Order. This order is defined as:
‘A Norwich Pharmacal Order (NPO) in Ireland is a legal order granted by the court to compel a third party to disclose information that can help identify a wrongdoer. It's an exception to the general rule that discovery (obtaining information) is only allowed after proceedings are closed. Essentially, it's a way to uncover information from someone who might be unknowingly involved in wrongful actions by others’.
The case before the court was to do with Internet fraud, where the applicant was seeking an order for a bank to disclose the photo ID of a person who may have information in regard to the alleged fraud.
The applicant was a French citizen residing in France and who responded to an ad in social media in 2021 for an investment opportunity. Following engagement with a ‘Mr Becker’ who purported to be a representative of Skandia Bank in Berlin, the applicant invested €280,000 in what he believed were investment vehicles to acquire care home facilities in Spain. The applicant proceeded to make money transfers to various bank accounts in Spain. In total the applicant invested €1.5 million.
Later that year, the plaintiff was contacted by a ‘Mr Lemercier’, purportedly a representative of Santander Bank in Paris, who advised that the investment opportunity availed of by the plaintiff was fraudulent and that he should withdraw the investments. The applicant realised that he was a victim of fraud and tried to contact the ‘Mr. Lemercier’ at the bank, but he was informed that no person of that name worked for the bank.
Despite lodging criminal complaints with criminal authorities in a number of EU countries, the identities of both Mr Becker and Mr Lemercier were unknown.
The applicant sought orders requiring the defendant company to provide information to assist him in identifying unknown individuals, including inter alia the names, addresses, dates of birth, email addresses and telephone numbers of the persons who opened the Irish bank accounts and any beneficiaries of those accounts, details of all transactions and payments made into or out of those accounts, and copies of the documentation used to open the accounts including identity verification documentation.
The defendant company consented to all reliefs except for the provision of ID documentation.
So, the issue before the court concerned compelling the defendant to release the photo ID of the person or persons who opened the bank accounts whereupon the applicant hoped he could trace the money stolen.
The judge considered the case law and the principles relating to Norwich Pharmacal orders (NPOs) and Bankers Trust orders. He was satisfied the case fell under the NPO equitable relief and in Ireland Megaleasing UK Ltd. v Barrett [1993] ILRM 497 approved the original case establishing the UK case of NPO of Norwich Pharmacal Co. v Commissioners of Customs and Excise [1974] AC 133. Under such a case an NPO compels a defendant to provide specified information that would assist to identify a third party who has committed an actionable wrong against a plaintiff and places a plaintiff in a position to identify and seek redress against a previously unknown wrongdoer.
Considering the issues in this case, the judge observed ‘Cybercrime is a growing threat to the worldwide economy, but particularly, the economies of the western world. There is little doubt that the plaintiff has been the victim of a concerted cybercrime involving multiple subterfuges.” And ‘In this case, a picture or photo of the individual who opened the account, will be of far greater assistance in leading to the location or preservation of the plaintiff’s money than simply, a name, address or e-mail with contact details.”
The defendant submitted that it was not necessary to bring a claim for the ID documentation but the judge disagreed stating: “While I appreciate there is no Irish authority to support the proposition, it seems to me to be an extension of the equitable jurisdiction and to coin a phrase often used in equitable cases, it seems to be ‘just and convenient’.
Decision
The judge found that the refusal of the application would significantly disfavour the applicant and that the applicant’s interests in obtaining the order were far greater than any detriment arising to the defendant in relation to confidentiality and the European Convention on Human Rights. The court considered that it was difficult to see what detriment would arise in circumstances where the applicant is obliged to give appropriate undertakings.
The judge commented that the delay in bringing the application was not fatal and deemed the provision of photographic-type documentation appropriate in the circumstances, and thus granted the orders sought.
Jean Pierre Boulbet v Sumup Limited [2025] IEHC 285.
The plaintiff in this case emerged from a hotel lift when she slipped and injured her elbow and foot, causing hospitalization. The plaintiff was with her husband and others when the accident happened. Her husband noticed a wet surface and the floor area where she fell and presumed this was the cause of his wife to fall. In describing her accident, the plaintiff told the court that she ‘went to step onto the carpet and [she] went down on to the ground.’ She was cross-examined by counsel for the defendant as to the wording in the personal injuries’ summons and the initial letter from her solicitor to the defendant. Here was there a difference in the description of her fall. The personal injury summons described it as: ‘At approximately 5:30pm the plaintiff… whilst exiting a lift in the company of her husband and other guests… was caused to slip and fall by reason of the said floor being wet and/or slippy due to the presence of a deleterious substance thereon.” While the original solicitor’s letter said: ‘At approximately 5:30p.m. when exiting the elevator… she had walked with others a number of steps from the elevator, slipped on the floor and fell to the ground.’ The judge was satisfied with the plaintiff’s evidence in the circumstances of the fall while acknowledging she did not know the cause of it. CCTV footage was produced in evidence and examined in great detail. But its location could not give an indication as to the condition of the floor. Witnesses for the hotel gave evidence of the hotel’s procedure for maintaining areas where guests use. A manager gave evidence for the defendant as she went to the plaintiff on it being reported and examined the floor. She did not see any wet area around the position of where the plaintiff was but did not bend down to feel the ground. Both sides had engineers giving evidence based on CCTV, but this did not assist the court in its net point in determining liability. The defendant queried the plaintiff’s high heels and put it to her that these heels might have contributed to her slipping, but the court was satisfied with her answer that she frequently wore high heels, and these did not cause her to slip. The defendant put it to the court that nobody else had issues with the floor; that on checking out of the hotel, the plaintiff did not complain about the fall and the absence of mentioning the wet floor in her solicitor’s original letter not in the ambulance record of the incident. However, on the balance of the evidence, the court was persuaded by the plaintiff’s evidence and found the hotel was liable for the accident. Having decided on liability, the court addressed the amount of damages and awarded a total of €72,000, for pain and suffering to date. Kirby v Hotel Kilkenny Ltd High Court (O’Connor J) 30 April 2025; [IEHC] 305.
Following her birth, a pair of pants was bought for the infant plaintiff in Brown Thomas’s store in Dublin. On a family holiday about 10 weeks later, she was dressed in a combination of pink dress and pants. After a few hours wearing this the baby became very agitated. Later when the baby was being prepared for bed that evening, her mother noticed red marks on the baby’s outer thighs. After the holiday, her mother brought her baby to her doctor and after examination, the doctor referred her to a consultant plastic and reconstructive surgeon. Photographs of the baby’s injuries were taken at the time of the injury and later for production to the court. The sequence of photographs showed the marks on the baby took two and a half years to fully clear up. An expert witness had examined the pants in 2012 and found that the elastic was twice as powerful as he would recommend even for an adult. The plastic surgeon had found residual scarring on the baby’s outer thighs and ‘’secondary to a tight constriction band in the area where an elasticated baby-gro might fit against a baby’s skin.” The surgeon’s report noted the only treatment required for the injuries was massage with Bio oil by the baby’s mother. Three years after the incident the surgeon noted there were no marks and no need for any treatment. The defendants, Ralph Lauren Ireland Ltd had delivered a full defence but a settlement offer of €17,500 had been made and the President of the Circuit Court, Mr. Justice Raymond Groarke, who was presiding, approved it and awarded the plaintiff costs. Amelia Duhy (Suing by her Mother, Julie Duhy) v Ralph Lauren Ireland Limited Circuit Court (Mr. Justice Raymond Groarke) 23 February 2016.
A shareholder’s agreement is a useful document to have especially when there are a number of shareholders. The main purpose of it is to regulate the relationship between shareholders, the company, and potentially the company's management, ensuring that all parties are aware of their roles and how the company will be governed. In essence the shareholders’ agreement is a contract and like all contracts it creates rights and obligations for shareholders beyond the basic rights in company law or in a company’s constitution. The parties to a shareholders’ agreement may be all the company’s shareholders or just some of them. But it is useful to have in place for new shareholders. Careful consideration needs to be given to its clauses. Your solicitor will guide you through these. Such agreements deal with the issue and sale/transfer of shares, the composition of the board of directors and appointment of new directors, how it deals with minority shareholders and their rights, restrictive covenants and options to resolve disputes. It is open to the directors creating a shareholder’s agreement to include or exclude clauses they want or do not want. In addition, a company can have more than one shareholder’s agreement in place at the same time but to avoid conflict one agreement is preferable. Having in place a shareholder’s agreement is a faster way of resolving disputes among shareholders. Some common issues that can create shareholder issues: How dividends are to be paid & when paid In family businesses disputes can easily arise, these can be more personal than to do with the company Selling shares Amending the company’s constitution Appointing new directors A shareholder’s agreement will cover all the contingencies that can arise in a business. Not all will be relevant to your business so your solicitor will guide you in choosing the clauses best suited to your business. A shareholder’s agreement can be terminated in a few ways, including by mutual agreement of the shareholders, by a specified event in the agreement, or by the company's dissolution. The agreement should outline the specific circumstances and procedures for termination.
A pre-nuptial agreement is an agreement made between two people who intend to marry each other. The agreement can cover a number of issues including the parties’ assets and arrangements in the event of the marriage breaking down regarding the custody and welfare of children they may have and even pets they may acquire. In Ireland, strangely enough, these agreements are not legally binding. They are then a statement of the parties’ intentions at the time they got married and if they end up in court, a judge is not bound by the terms of the agreement. However, there is a provision under the Succession Act, 1965 (section 113) where a spouse or civil partner can renounce his or her legal right in a pre-nuptial agreement and this does have legal effect. Like any important document it is wise to take legal advice on drafting a pre-nuptial agreement. Openness and honesty are required when disclosing what assets the parties may have before they entered the agreement. Holding back the disclosure of money, property, or other assets, defeats its purpose. Form of the Agreement While there is no definitive rule, it should be in writing. As it is in fact a contract between two parties, it should be signed by both parties, dated, and ideally witnessed. There is nothing against updating a pre-nuptial agreement and where the circumstances change of one or indeed both parties, it might be a good idea to update it to cater for the new situation. Cohabitation Agreements This has legislative protection under the Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Act, 2010 . This permits cohabitants to enter into a cohabitants’ agreement regarding financial matters during their time together. There is a provision in the Act requiring that either the couple obtained independent legal advice or that they obtained legal advice together and waived, in writing, the right to independent legal advice. Here also, the agreement must be in writing, dated and signed by both parties.
ViberStore Group, a small Irish phone recycling retailer and supplier company, sought to register the trademark ViberStore but the application was challenged by Viber, a company owned by Japanese giant Rakuten. The dispute which came before the Controller of Intellectual Property centred around the name ‘viber’ and whether its usage by the applicant Irish company would cause confusion in the market. Viber, in opposing the trademark, claimed that the Irish company’s logo was similar to their company’s registered trademarks. It claimed the phone services of the Irish company were similar enough to the services they provided to cause confusion among the public as to whether the two companies were associated. They accused ViberStore of ‘passing off’ and in their submission called on the Controller to reject the Irish company application to register the trademark ‘ViberStore.’ They pressed the point that consumers would likely be confused between the two companies and could think the two companies were associated, which they were not. Viberstore group rejected the complaints made by the Japanese-owned company. It said that while ten years ago their service had widespread usage that since the arrival of WhatsApp, its market had been taken over. They rejected the argument that there would be confusion among consumers in the two names. The Controller in his ruling found that ViberStore was trying to take unfair advantage of the Viber trademark, but he found that the Irish company were not "passing off" their services with those their competitor. In rejecting ViberStore’s application for their trademark, the Controller said: ‘the re is a real likelihood that a consumer, who had used [Viber’s] goods or services or who had an awareness of them, would, when encountering the applicant’s mark, be liable to be confused or be led to believe that the applicant’s mark is associated with those of the opponent’s’. He went on to say that there was a ‘ high level of similarity’ between the two marks and a similarity in respect of the services. The ViberStore Group Limited (applicant) v Viber Media S.à r.l. (opponent) No. 263638 Controller of Intellectual Property (John Nolan) 10 April 2025.
The Government has announced that a provision under the Planning and Development (Street Furniture Fees) Regulations 2025, will now provide that fees for street furniture used for in-street dining will be waived for the rest of 2025. This will come as a great relief to hotels, restaurants, public houses, or other establishments where food is sold for consumption on the premises. Minister James Browne said about this regulation: ‘This is a pro-business and a pro-tourism government, and I want to give small businesses and the hospitality sector every bit of help we can to deal with costs, build their businesses and continue to create employment. “ That is why I intend to waive the outdoor furniture licence fee for 2025. Saving businesses up to €125 a table, this is a constructive and helpful step to help our local businesses thrive. “This waiver will require regulations to pass through both Houses of the Oireachtas so I have asked my department to commence this process immediately with the intention that the waiver will be in place in time for summer and the hopefully good weather for outdoor dining.” Section 254 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000 provides for a street furniture licensing system for prescribed appliances and structures, placed on, above, under or along a public road, including footpaths. Section 246 of the Act provides that the minister can make regulations providing for prescribed fees to be paid to planning authorities in relation to applications for grants of licences under s.254 of the Act. The fee for a licence for tables and chairs is currently set at €125 per table per year and this fee is what the minister intends to waive for the remainder of 2025. The date this provision comes into effect has not yet been set.
The body content of your post goes here. To edit this text, click on it and delete this default text and start typing your own or paste your own from a different source.
Unfortunately, as often seen in the media, pedestrians can be the victims of road traffic accidents in Ireland. In some instances, the cause of the accident is the pedestrian. In such cases, a court will have to balance and determine on the ‘duty of care’ of the driver and the pedestrian. If the court finds that the pedestrian caused the accident, then the liability falls on the pedestrian. This could have dire financial consequences because while the drivers will be insured, the pedestrians, will not. Circumstances where Pedestrians are at Fault. Drunkenness/drugs: a person under the influence of alcohol or drugs wandering onto a road causing an accident. Negligence: Pedestrians who are distracted (e.g., using a mobile phone). Jaywalking: Busy roads have designated places to cross over, these can be traffic lights, zebra crossings or islands in middle of the road. These are there to aid pedestrians crossing the road. If a person chooses to cross a road outside of these and they are there, then they could be held liable for an accident. A court will carefully examine the evidence and might conclude that both the driver and the pedestrian were at fault and will apportion the liability. Compensation for Injury Your solicitor will advise you on what court the case can be taken in. • District Court - €2,000 in small claims or claims up to €15,000. • Circuit Court - Claims between €15,000 and €75,000 (€60,000 in personal injury claims) • High Court - Claims above €75,000 with no upper limit It is important that you select the correct court. If the case is borderline High Court, it might be better to take the case in the Circuit Court as it will be heard quicker, and the costs are less. Costs always must be taken into consideration as there is always a risk that you could lose the case. The costs in the High Court will be much higher than the Circuit Court. Relevant Facts in Establishing Loss • How the accident has impacted your life. • Medical Expenses – GP, hospital, medication, physio. • Loss of earnings/having to change line of work and receive less income. • Loss of enjoyment of life (sporting activity) Filing Your Claim In Ireland this is governed by statute but in general the case must be filed within two years from the date of the accident or the date you became aware of the injury. There are exceptions to the 2-year rule and your solicitor will advise you on this . The Personal Injuries Assessment Board (PIAB) Average Payments of Compensation • Minor Injuries: €5,000 to €15,000 • Moderate Injuries: €15,000 to €40,000 • Severe Injuries: €40,000 to €75,000 • Very Severe Injuries: €75,000 to €125,000+ Your solicitor will advise you on the range of compensation and all steps to be taken. Early contact with your solicitor is strongly recommended.
Common personal injuries occur when people slip on wet floors which can happen in shops, business premises or visiting a private house. County councils are obligated to keep pathways safe for pedestrian usage. Uneven footpaths have been the cause of many accidents and court cases. Where the fall is our own fault contributing to the accident and injury, it does not fully absolve the legal liability for the obstacle that causes the accident. Responsibility for keeping premises safe applies also to private homes and property. Businesses and local authorities are insured for such claims and many home insurers also cover these. In such a situation, where a claim looks likely, you should act immediately by: • Taking note of the date, time of day and place of the accident. • If any person witnessed the accident, obtain their name and contact details. • If it was a business premises, bring the matter to their attention to get it documented. Follow up by email/letter to start a record. • Ideally, take a photograph of where the accident happened and the obstacle that caused the accident. • Visit your GP (or hospital), keep record of same, who you saw etc. • If you wish to make a claim because of the injury, consult your solicitor. • Keep records of any medication and costs incurred. Property Owners There are exceptions where a court will find the property owner not responsible for the accident, these occur when: • You were a trespasser on the property (i.e. not permitted to be on the property). • Your actions caused the accident. • Another person would have avoided the hazardous obstacle. • The property owner took all reasonable procedures to prevent the accident. Alternatively, the property owner will be held liable if: • The owner had not taken all reasonable steps to avoid an accident happening. • The obstacle that caused the accident was made by the property owner or an employee who knew or should have known of the danger. Compensation : Not all accidents require hospitalisation so in these less serious claims it is important to keep notes of any financial loss incurred that relate directly to the acccident. So, early contact with your solicitor is vital in assessing whether it is worth taking a case at all. Where a property owner disputes the claim then you must prove that they were negligent. If a court is not satisfied that the property owner was responsible, then you will incur their legal costs as well as your own. So, discuss the claim with your solicitor who will advise you on all matters involved. Your solicitor will advise you also in what court to take the case, i.e. High Court, Circuit Court or District Court.
The tenant moved into a three-bedroom house in Swords, Co. Dublin in 2019 and paid a rent of €1,900 a month. She never queried the rent until a neighbour informed her in the summer of 2023 that the previous tenant had been paying €1,500 pm. The tenant said that she was not familiar with the RPZ rules and only that she was served with a notice to terminate the lease that she went onto the RPZ website and read about her rights as a tenant. The tenant claimed that she asked the landlord how much the previous tenant had paid but she claimed that he told her that it was none of her business. The landlord claimed that he was never asked by the tenant what the previous rent was. The landlord told the Residential Tenancies Board (RTB) that the previous tenant had rented the house from October 2015 to July 2018 at a monthly rent of €1,500. The RPZ rules came into operation in December 2016. As the house was located in a designated RPZ zone, the maximum annual increases the landlord could apply was 4%. On this basis the maximum he could have charged the tenant at the start of the new tenancy in 2019 was €1,754 per month. Therefore, there was a monthly overpayment of €145.21. The landlord said he entered the lease agreement in good faith and in compliance of the law as best he could. The RTB awarded the tenant €8,500 for the overcharging of rent. Germaine v Horgan Residential Tenancies Board Ref No.: TR0824-007961, 8 January 2025.
