Smith v ADVFN Plc

Smith v ADVFN Plc

The judge had discretion to limit the scope of the Norwich Pharmacal order to postings already considered in prior proceedings, given the applicant's failure to present the material in a manageable and discriminating form and the disproportionate burden and cost of wider disclosure. There was no error in refusing to conduct an item-by-item assessment of all 252 postings or in declining to permit expert evidence on compliance costs at this stage.

Parties
Appellant: Smith; Respondent: ADVFN plc
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 April 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (norwich Pharmacal Application)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Norwich Pharmacal Orders, Disclosure of Information, Defamation Via Internet, Costs of Compliance, Data Protection Act, Freedom of Expression
Civil Procedure Defamation Data Protection Norwich Pharmacal Orders Disclosure of Information Defamation Via Internet Costs of Compliance Data Protection Act +1 more

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Smith

Appellant

ADVFN plc

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (norwich Pharmacal Application)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred in refusing to order disclosure for all 252 postings rather than the 100 previously ordered
  2. 2 Whether the judge should have conducted an individual examination of each posting to determine if the Norwich Pharmacal test was met
  3. 3 Whether the costs and burden of compliance justified limiting the order

Ratio Decidendi

The judge had discretion to limit the scope of the Norwich Pharmacal order to postings already considered in prior proceedings, given the applicant's failure to present the material in a manageable and discriminating form and the disproportionate burden and cost of wider disclosure. There was no error in refusing to conduct an item-by-item assessment of all 252 postings or in declining to permit expert evidence on compliance costs at this stage.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Respondent to provide applicant with name, address, email address, and IP address for each avatar for the 100 postings previously ordered, within 14 working days
  • Applicant to pay respondent's reasonable costs of compliance, to be assessed if not agreed