Civil Enforcements / Norwich Pharmacal Order

Trebor16

A Norwich Pharmacal Order relates to where an innocent third party had information relating to unlawful conduct. For one to be granted the victim must demonstrate that:-

• a reasonable basis to allege that a wrong has actually been committed
• the disclosure of documents or information from the third party is needed to enable action against the wrongdoer
• the respondent is not a "mere witness", but is sufficiently mixed up in the wrongdoing so as to have facilitated it, even if innocently, and therefore be in a position to provide the information
• the order is necessary in the interests of justice on the facts of the case.

So how would you argue that a respondent is mixed up in wrongdoing and has facilitated another person to have committed a "wrong" in a situation where another person has used a vehicle belonging to another? And then there is the issue of wrongdoing itself in relation to private parking.

There is also the issue of costs. The person seeking the granting of an order has to pay the costs for such an order. So all that work over an £85 parking charge? I think not.

Sirdan

"So how would you argue that a respondent is mixed up in wrongdoing and has facilitated another person to have committed a "wrong" in a situation where another person has used a vehicle belonging to another?

Quite easily actually , but I'm not going to post the answer here for all our private scamming ...oops I mean parking..companies to read.:rotfl:

Trebor16

You won't answer the question by PM either. So if you are not prepared to answer in public (for obvious reasons) or when you are sent a pm, how do you intend to share your knowledge?

notts_phil

Double checked with melting county court and the hearing is still going ahead for 2pm Mon. I wonder if 'Mr litigation manager navide akbar will show his face. I shall be there with camera phone. If him or perky show.(doubt perky will) will take a few snaps so we have something to aim at on the dart board lol.

esmerobbo

I see Perky or someone has been busy with the Delete button!!! Pity he cant delete the quotes!!:p

Sirdan

Trebor16 wrote: »

You won't answer the question by PM either. So if you are not prepared to answer in public (for obvious reasons) or when you are sent a pm, how do you intend to share your knowledge?

I don't because it is not knowledge it is like a lot of the finer points of law just my considered opinion.

Firstly lose the word "unlawful" it is confusing as it tends to direct people towards the criminal arena , which this certainly is not.

I would say the term "mixed up in" is also unhelpful.

Using a broad interpretation of the term "facilitate" then a "facillitator" could not possibly fail to be "mixed up in".

As for "wrongdoing" again this is to be broadly interpreted and if there is an "action" that gives rise to a claim then this will be the "wrongdoing" in question surely ?


The claimant does not in my opinion need to show that they have a "good" claim just that the "action" could lead to a legitimate claim.

In the case of private parking, if you park outwith the contract or by tresspass then it is fair to say that a claim may follow, whether it is a properly drawn up claim that will suceed is not in my opinion particularly relevant.

I don't believe it would be right and proper for the NPO forum to examine in detail the claim ,all that is needed is to satisfy the Judge that an action that could lead to a legitimate claim has on probability occurred.

As said this is one side of the arguement ..I could easily argue it the other way but that's def not something I will be sharing with the watching parking muppets, hopefully they will meet someone who can argue the same on the 25th.

notts_phil

Perkys had his account deleted

esmerobbo

notts_phil wrote: »

Perkys had his account deleted

That's a pity, his CPS victory post's made him look a bit of a !!!!!!! Also whatever way his victory came last week, by deleting his posts, they can claim we are afraid of facts! [However distorted]

RENEGADE_2

PPExpert wrote: »

'Several PPC's have thrown NPO's into the treat-mix over the last few years but none has so far dared to go for one.'


EPS/VC definitely have NPO applied for recently in Leeds District Registry - I have seen the judgment.

Its not such an empty threat anymore.

Absolute BS

notts_phil

RENEGADE wrote: »

Absolute BS

Totally esp as he didn't come back with anything to back up his statement