第三方披露令 Norwich Pharmacal Order

 第三方披露令

現行普通法中的第三方披露令(Norwich Pharmacal Order) 容許訴訟一方向非涉案的第三方（公司或個人- 本身為無辜情況下與不合法行為扯上關係）要求披露涉案文件及資料。雖然第三方並非事件加害者，但因其與加害行為有所關連，故法庭有權要求第三方披露資料。

第三方披露令起源於1974年英國上議院所審理的Norwich Pharmacal Co. & Others v Customs and Excise Commissioners [1974] AC 133。案件講述當事人為某抗生素專利的擁有者及授權人，其發現有未經許可的化合品入口英國但未能得知進口商身分。海關拒絕當事人申請披露有關進口商的資料，故當事人要求法院頒令海關公開有關資料。上議院根據普通法的公平補救(equitable relief)原則，規定無辜第三者向當事人披露加害者身分。法庭在酌定批令時會考慮文件是否存在或第三者是否擁有該文件、相關性（文件是否與加害行為相關）及必要性（披露文件對維護公義的必要）等因素作衡量，平衡保密義務與正義之間的衝突。

高等法院於A Co v B Co [2002] 2 HKC 497 一案中指出法庭在頒布第三方披露令前所要考慮的因素包括：(1)必須有確實而且具說服力的證據，證明曾發生嚴重的侵權或不當活動；（2）必須清楚證明該命令會或很可能會爲原告人帶來一定的利益；及（3）要求披露的內容不可過於廣泛。

法庭亦會衡量第三者在案件中的角色是否牽涉於加害行為內。在Danone Asia Pte Limited v S.B. Chow & Co., CPA & Anor [2009] 1 HKLRD 470一案中，法庭認為如第三方只為目擊證人或旁觀者並沒有參與其中，則不符合第三方披露令的要求。而該案亦有提到第三方披露令適用於未發生的加害責任，但只限於第三者為唯一合理渠道得知該行為。

若要申請第三方披露令，申請人需向香港高等法院一原訟傳票(Originating Summons) 方式作出申請，並作一誓章(affidavit) 確認陳述屬實。由於第三方並非加害人，而是無辜第三者，第三方可以按彌償基準(on an indemnity basis) 獲取訟費，除不合理費用外，所有訟費皆可申索，即申請人需向被申請人支付全部律師費用。(見Ngan In Leng v Chu Yuet Wah (No.1) [2013] 1 HKLRD 717)。但即使法庭判令被告需要承擔申請的費用，若法庭認為申請人在申請第三方披露令時具壓迫性及有投機性質，法庭又權要求申請人支付訟費。(見Sanctuary Systems Limited v Orient International Holdings Hong Kong Co Ltd & Anor [2015] HKCFI 1007)

除以上的第三方披露令外，申請人亦可透過《高等法院條例》第42條有關披露文件條例要求法庭頒令第三方交出文件。法律程序的一方可提出申請，如法庭覺得第三方可能現時或曾經管有、保管或控制有關文件，即可按規則作出命令。而此條例只適用於已入稟的司法程序。

在申請第三方披露令時，申請人須留意此命令並不適用於在誹謗案件中要求出版商公開作者或編輯身分（見英國上議院案件Campbell v MGN Ltd [2004] UKHL 22）、刑事檢控（見Secretary for Justice v Apple Daily [2000] 2 HKLRD 704）及法庭並不會容許申請人有投機性目的（fishing discovery）要求披露文件（見Manufacturer’s Life Insurance Co. of Canada v Harvest Hero International Ltd & Anor [2002] 1 HKLRD 828）。

文件披露令有助當事人了解爭議事項及事實，加快訴訟程序的展開及流程運作。

Norwich Pharmacal Order allows the litigation party to request for disclosure of the documents and information involved in the case from a third party (a company or individual who is innocent but connected with the illegal conduct). Although the third party is not the perpetrator, the court has the right to request the third party to disclose information because of his/her linkage with the offending behaviour.

The Norwich Pharmacal Order was originated from Norwich Pharmacal Co. & Others v Customs and Excise Commissioners [1974] AC 133 before the House of Lords. The case was about an owner who was an owner and licensor of a certain antibiotic patent discovered that an unauthorized compound was imported into the UK but was unable to know the identity of the importer. The Customs refused the party's application to disclose the information about the importer, so the party requested the court to order a disclosure of the relevant information. Based on the equitable relief principle, the court ordered the innocent third-party to disclose the identity. The court will consider whether the document exists or whether a third party owns the document, relevance (whether the document is related to the offending behavior) and necessity (disclosure of the document is necessary to maintain justice) to balance the conflict between confidentiality and justice.

In the case of A Co v B Co [2002] 2 HKC 497, the High Court pointed out the factors that the court must consider before issuing a third-party disclosure order, they include: (1) reliable and convincing evidence to prove that serious incidents have occurred; (2) the order will or is likely to bring certain benefits to the plaintiff; and (3) the content required to be disclosed should not be too wide.

The court will also assess whether the third party is involved in the offending behavior. In the case of Danone Asia Pte Limited v SB Chow & Co., CPA & Anor [2009] 1 HKLRD 470, the court held that if a third party is only an eyewitness or a bystander, he/she is not involved and does not meet the requirements of the Norwich Pharmacal Order. That case also illustrated that the third-party disclosure order applies to non-occurring infringement liability only if the third party is the only practical source.

To apply for the Norwich Pharmacal Order, the applicant must apply to the High Court of Hong Kong in the form of an Originating Summons and make an affidavit. Since the third party is not an offender, but an innocent third party, he/she can obtain costs on an indemnity basis. The applicant should pay the third party all costs except for unreasonable costs. (See Ngan In Leng v Chu Yuet Wah (No. 1) [2013] 1 HKLRD 717). However, even if the court orders the defendant to bear the costs of the application, if the court considers that the applicant is oppressive and speculative, the court has the right to order the applicant to pay legal costs. (See Sanctuary Systems Limited v Orient International Holdings Hong Kong Co Ltd & Anor [2015] HKCFI 1007)

Besides the Norwich Pharmacal Order, applicants can also request the court to order the third party to produce documents under Cap. 4 High Court Ordinance Article 42. One party to the legal process can submit an application of disclosure, if the court believes that the third party may currently or have possessed, kept or controlled the relevant documents, it can make a disclosure order. This regulation only applies to judicial proceedings that have been filed.

When applying for the Norwich Pharmacal Order, the applicant should note that this order does not apply to require publishers to disclose the identity of the author or editor in libel cases (see the case of the House of Lords Campbell v MGN Ltd [2004] UKHL 22), criminal prosecution (Secretary for Justice v Apple Daily [2000] 2 HKLRD 704) and the court will not allow fishing discovery over the disclosure of documents (Manufacturer's Life Insurance Co. of Canada v Harvest Hero International Ltd & Anor [2002] 1 HKLRD 828).

Norwich Pharmacal Order helps the parties to understand the issues and facts in dispute, speeding up the commencement of litigation procedures and processes.