Smith v ADVFN Plc

Smith v ADVFN Plc

The court held that the defendant had complied with the previous order and that the applicant's request for wider disclosure (Option 1) was too broad and disproportionate. However, the court granted disclosure in the more limited terms of Option 2 (covering 100 postings by 23 avatars), finding that the conditions for Norwich Pharmacal relief were met for those postings, and that the burden and privacy concerns were adequately balanced by limiting the scope and requiring reasonable costs to be paid by the applicant.

Parties
Applicant/claimant: Nigel Smith; Respondent/defendant: ADVFN PLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 March 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil (norwich Pharmacal Application) / Interlocutory Application Ruling
Outcome
Application granted in part (Option 2 only)
Legal Topics
Norwich Pharmacal Orders, Disclosure of Information, Defamation Via Internet, Data Protection Act Compliance
Civil Procedure Defamation Data Protection Norwich Pharmacal Orders Disclosure of Information Defamation Via Internet Data Protection Act Compliance

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nigel Smith

Applicant/claimant

ADVFN PLC

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (norwich Pharmacal Application) / Interlocutory Application Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant must disclose further identifying information (including IP addresses at time of postings) for avatars alleged to have posted defamatory statements
  2. 2 Whether the defendant complied with the previous disclosure order
  3. 3 Whether the scope of the order sought is proportionate and justified

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the defendant had complied with the previous order and that the applicant's request for wider disclosure (Option 1) was too broad and disproportionate. However, the court granted disclosure in the more limited terms of Option 2 (covering 100 postings by 23 avatars), finding that the conditions for Norwich Pharmacal relief were met for those postings, and that the burden and privacy concerns were adequately balanced by limiting the scope and requiring reasonable costs to be paid by the applicant.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part (Option 2 only)

Orders

  • Defendant to disclose to the claimant the name, address, email address, and IP address at the time of each of the 100 specified postings by the 23 avatars, within seven working days, with liberty to apply for further time.
  • Defendant to provide all IP addresses captured for each avatar on the day of the alleged defamatory posting, indicating if possible which was captured at the time of the posting.