Is there a duty of full and frank disclosure on a Norwich Pharmacal application?
Thanks to Torrentfreak it was reported that the actual company behind the recent campaigns was Goldeneye International Limited
“So Virgin Media customers were targeted by an almost identical wave of letters shortly after, this time sent by well-known copyright troll outfit Mircom. Representing several overseas porn companies, Mircom also want cash to make supposed lawsuits go away. This week the latter case provided a sinister twist. After TF revealed that Mircom was trying to hide its identity from its domain WHOIS, a reader reported the company to domain registry Nominet. Soon after Mircom.co.uk revealed its true operator to be GoldenEye International, another copyright troll outfit that had featured in previous UK cases. Emails currently being sent to letter recipients also confirm that GoldenEye are handling their claims.”
However were the Court informed?
In R v Kensington Income Tax Commissioners ex parte de Polignac  1 KB 486 Warrington LJ said at 509:
“It is perfectly well settled that a person who makes an ex parte application to the court—that is to say, in the absence of the person who will be affected by that which the court is asked to do—is under an obligation to the court to make the fullest possible disclosure of all material facts within his knowledge, and if he does not make that fullest possible disclosure, then he cannot obtain any advantage from the proceedings, and he will be deprived of any advantage he may have already obtained by means of the order which has thus wrongly been obtained by him. That is perfectly plain and requires no authority to justify it.”
My argument is that its now about time that applicants were subject to such a duty? If Golden Eye have misled the court ( and I’m not saying they have)…then surely this must be a ground for attacking the Order.