- within Litigation and Mediation & Arbitration topic(s)
- in India
- within Law Department Performance and Antitrust/Competition Law topic(s)
A recent decision from the Cyprus Court of Appeal, issued on 17 November 2025, has drawn a bright red line around how parties may use information obtained through these orders. The ruling (Civil Appeal No. 104/2017 Vectronix AG.Hellenic Bank Public Company Limited 17/11/2015) makes clear that attempting to sidestep the restrictions on Norwich Pharmacal disclosures can result in claims being struck out entirely, with significant cost consequences.
The Cyprus Court of Appeal case's facts illustrate how easily parties can stumble into procedural quicksand when using Norwich Pharmacal disclosures.
Fraud victims successfully obtained Norwich Pharmacal orders against a bank, which they explicitly characterized as an "innocent third party" in their application. The stated purposes were straightforward and typical:
- To identify the perpetrators of the alleged fraud;
- To trace funds that had been fraudulently misappropriated;
- The bank complied with the orders and disclosed the requested information.
The claimants thereafter made a critical strategic decision: they used that same information to launch proceedings against the bank itself, alleging negligence, breach of duty, and breach of trust.
The Court of Appeal did not mince words. It struck out the claim in its entirety, declaring it an abuse of process.
The reasoning was clear. By characterizing the bank as an "innocent third party" to obtain disclosure, then immediately turning around and suing that same party using the disclosed information, the claimants had fundamentally breached the implied undertaking that accompanies every Norwich Pharmacal order.
The Court ordered the claimants to pay €5,500 in costs (plus applicable VAT) to the respondent.
The decision crystallizes three fundamental principles that govern the use of Norwich Pharmacal disclosures in Cyprus:
1. The Implied Undertaking is Automatic and Non-Negotiable
Every person who receives information pursuant to a Norwich Pharmacal order automatically gives an implied undertaking to the Court. This undertaking requires them to use the information exclusively for the purposes stated in their application.
This is not optional. It doesn't require special wording in the order. It exists by operation of law the moment the information is disclosed.
2. Collateral Use is Prohibited Without Permission
The disclosed information cannot be used for any "collateral or ulterior purposes" - meaning purposes beyond those originally stated - unless one of two exceptions applies:
- The disclosing party gives express written consent, or;
- The Court grants prior leave for the expanded use.
3. Suing the Disclosing Party is the Ultimate Breach
The Court held that using Norwich Pharmacal disclosures to bring claims against the very party that provided them - particularly after characterizing that party as "innocent" - represents a fundamental abuse of the disclosure process.
Cyprus is not alone in enforcing strict limitations on disclosure. Courts across common law jurisdictions, including England and Wales, from which Cyprus derives much of its civil procedure, have consistently emphasized that disclosure mechanisms exist to serve justice, not to create unfair tactical advantages.
In an era of increasingly sophisticated cross-border fraud schemes, maintaining the integrity of disclosure mechanisms is essential. If third parties fear that providing information will expose them to litigation, they may resist disclosure more vigorously, making these tools less effective for everyone.
The Cyprus Court of Appeal's decision serves as a powerful reminder that procedural rules are not mere technicalities; they are substantive protections that courts will enforce rigorously.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
