About this case:

• Citation:
  [2025] IEHC 285
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  High Court
• Judge:
  Mr Justice David Nolan

Delivering judgment for the High Court, Mr Justice David Nolan was satisfied that “the court should take a realistic view as to how frauds are conducted and be satisfied there is a real prospect that the information sought might assist in locating and preserving the assets” and that the “furnishing of a photograph does not assist in proving a claim, it assists in bringing a claim because the photograph may well identify the person against whom the claim should be brought”.

Background

In 2021, the plaintiff, a French citizen residing in France, responded to what he believed to be an investment opportunity advertised on social media. Following his engagement with a Mr Becker, purportedly a representative of Skandia Bank in Berlin, the plaintiff invested €280,000 into what he believed to be investment vehicles to acquire care home facilities in Spain.

To proceed with the investment, the plaintiff made transfers into various bank accounts located in Spain.

Later that same 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 plaintiff was convinced to purchase investment products from Santander Bank, resulting in the making of transfers to a range of other accounts across the EU totalling approximately €1.5 million.

It subsequently became apparent to the plaintiff that he had been the victim of fraud when he telephoned the Paris branch of Santander Bank attempting to make contact with Mr Lemercier and was informed that no person by that name worked for that bank.

The plaintiff made complaints to the criminal authorities in various EU countries, but the real identities of Mr Becker and Mr Lemercier were unknown.

The plaintiff 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 High Court

Mr Justice Nolan observed that the plaintiff’s application engaged legal principles relating to both Norwich Pharmacal orders (NPOs) and Bankers Trust orders, noting that there is “a subtle but distinct difference between the two types of orders”.

The judge set out the jurisprudence in relation to NPOs as derived from Norwich Pharmacal Co. v Commissioners of Customs and Excise [1974] AC 133 and approved in Ireland in Megaleasing UK Ltd. v Barrett [1993] ILRM 497, explaining that a 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.

Noting that the most recent authoritative case in this jurisdiction setting out the relevant principles on NPOs is Blythe v Commissioner of An Garda Síochána [2023] IECA 255, the court then set out the law in relation to Bankers Trust orders as derived from Bankers Trust Co. v Shapira [1980] 1 WLR 1274.

Mr Justice Nolan summarised that Bankers Trust orders involve “discovery of a range of documents which go beyond information which simply identified alleged wrongdoers” and set out the relevant principles as noted in Kyriakou v Christie Manson & Woods Ltd [2017] EWHC 487 (QB), including that there must be good grounds for supposing that the assets about which information is sought belong to the claimant, that there must be real prospect that the information will lead to the location or preservation of assets, that the order should be directed at uncovering the assets to be traced and should be no wider than necessary, and that the interests of the claimant must be balanced against possible detriment to the respondent in complying with the order sought.

Noting the parties’ submissions, the High Court observed: “Bearing in mind that both type of orders are equitable in nature, it seems to me that the court must recognise the digital world in which we now live in.”

The court continued: “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.”

Turning to the issue of discovery of the ID documentation sought, Mr Justice Nolan considered that: “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 judge explained that he would take on board the views expressed in Blythe where the court noted that if there is any jurisdiction to furnish information, it should be strictly limited to disclosures sought for the purposes of bringing a claim and would not extend to the disclosure of material required to prove that claim which would be a matter for discovery in the ordinary way.

In that regard, Mr Justice Nolan remarked: “The furnishing of a photograph does not assist in proving a claim, it assists in bringing a claim because the photograph may well identify the person against whom the claim should be brought.”

Disagreeing with the defendant’s assertion that the documentation was not necessary to bring a claim, the judge reasoned: “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’.”

Finding that the refusal of the application would significantly disfavour the plaintiff and that the plaintiff’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 plaintiff is obliged to give appropriate undertakings.

The court continued: “… in the context of cybercrime and internet fraud, the court must balance those interests against that of the plaintiff, who has been a victim of such crime. The whole point of bringing the application is to identify wrongdoers so that proceedings could be instituted in this or other jurisdictions.”

Finding that the delay in bringing the application was not fatal, the court deemed the provision of photographic type documentation appropriate in the circumstances.

Conclusion

Accordingly, the High Court made the order sought in relation to all three categories of documentation under both headings.

Jean Pierre Boulbet v Sumup Limited [2025] IEHC 285