Kate Gee and Oliver Steeple explore third‑party disclosure mechanisms in Global Relay Intelligence & Practice

Kate and Oliver’s article was published in Global Relay Intelligence & Practice, 23 December 2025, here.

When internal audits, contractual rights, and voluntary requests fail to produce adequate disclosure, English law provides several routes to unlock critical data quickly and lawfully. This article outlines the principal third-party disclosure mechanisms, when to use them, what to expect in practice, and the common pitfalls for pharmaceutical compliance and risk teams.

The big picture: choosing the right tool for the job

When investigating unusual facts or facing a potential dispute, third-parties often hold the information that can break the impasse and inform the strategy. No single mechanism suits every scenario. Some reveal who is behind misconduct; others trace funds; others preserve at‑risk evidence. All of them give rise to the same questions: what do you need, why do you need it now, and which is the best route? Courts place weight on necessity, proportionality and focus. Tight scoping, basic pre‑investigation, and documenting failed voluntary requests usually increase the prospects of your application succeeding and reduce the time and cost involved.

Norwich Pharmacal orders: identifying the wrongdoer or key facts held by intermediaries

A Norwich Pharmacal order compels a third party innocently mixed up in the wrongdoing, to disclose information necessary to identify a wrongdoer or to understand essential details of the wrongdoing. Pharmaceutical companies may use this for several reasons: for example unmasking anonymous sellers of counterfeit medicines, identifying operators of rogue websites, obtaining IP, account or merchant data from platforms. securing details from logistics providers who handled suspect consignments, and identifying sources behind smear campaigns or data leaks causing reputational harm.

In practice, the court will expect a clear, “good arguable case” that a wrong occurred, that the respondent is mixed up in it (even innocently), and that the information sought is necessary and proportionate. It is not a fishing expedition; requests must be tightly targeted at information that will move the investigation forward.

Businesses should use Norwich Pharmacal orders where speed and anonymity‑busting are critical; typical timelines are measured in a few weeks for a tightly prepared, uncontested application; it can be longer in other jurisdictions. Businesses should also build a confidentiality protocol and allow for redactions of non‑essential data to address privacy concerns.

Bankers Trust orders: tracing misappropriated funds and value

Where you are following the money – for example embezzlement in an overseas affiliate – Bankers Trust orders can compel banks and certain intermediaries to disclose account and transaction information so misappropriated funds can be traced. The court looks for a strong prima facie case that the claimant’s property has been misappropriated and that the order is necessary to reveal information that will enable assets to be traced.

Orders are limited to information necessary to trace property, not general discovery; the court balances disclosure against confidentiality. Strategically, Bank Trust orders are useful where tracing is urgent, especially where funds have moved through multiple accounts or jurisdictions.

Although originally aimed at banks, courts have adapted the jurisdiction to modern realities, including disclosure against non‑bank custodians and, in suitable cases, cryptocurrency exchanges.

For compliance teams, this route is valuable in many situations: when internal forensic accounting indicates diversion to identifiable accounts; when law‑enforcement routes are too slow for urgent tracing; when you need to obtain information necessary to secure freezing or proprietary relief, or to commence litigation or arbitration.

Bankers’ Books Evidence Act orders: obtaining certified bank records for use in proceedings

If one needs to obtain information from a bank but cannot satisfy the criteria to obtain a Bankers’ Trust order, one can seek an order under the Bankers’ Books Evidence Act 1879, if proceedings are live or imminent.  This can require a bank to produce certified copies of entries in its records for use as evidence. This is narrower than a Bankers Trust order and aimed at evidential production for specific litigation. It is often used once one knows exactly what one needs from a particular bank to prove flow of funds or reconcile an account narrative.

Businesses should treat this as complementary: use Bankers Trust for urgent tracing to find where assets went; use Bankers’ Books to put admissible bank evidence before the court once the dispute is live, or if Bankers Trust criteria cannot be met.

Search and imaging orders: preserving at‑risk evidence

Search orders (including modern “imaging orders” for devices and accounts) are exceptional, but powerful where you can show a real risk that key evidence will be destroyed or concealed, and where the order sought is proportionate. Courts typically require a supervising solicitor, full and frank disclosure, and cross-undertaking in damages to minimise risk of harm.

In the pharmaceutical context, some examples of where imaging orders may be sought include high‑risk scenarios such as departing employees exfiltrating trade secrets about formulations or manufacturing protocols, employee fraud or misconduct and intellectual property infringement. They also assist asset recovery by securing evidence of location or dissipation.

The lesson for compliance teams is evidential discipline: urgently assemble contemporaneous proof of attempted deletion or concealment and propose a proportionate scope limited to the devices, accounts, or date ranges where risk is shown. That secured evidence can then be used to inform case strategy and to determine next steps.

Asset disclosure orders supporting freezing relief: forcing a respondent to reveal assets

When you obtain a freezing order to prevent dissipation, courts commonly grant an ancillary asset disclosure order compelling the respondent to provide full details of assets above a threshold. This is a policing tool: without truthful asset disclosure, a freezing order is hard to enforce. Pairing freezing relief with asset disclosure can quickly reveal bank accounts, vehicles, real estate and other assets, whether held directly or indirectly. This order will usually be accompanied by a penal notice, requiring strict compliance and giving the applicant a basis to police the order and seek to ensure compliance.

Expect the court to insist on proportionality and tailoring, and plan to use return hearings to sequence next steps, including bank notifications and focused follow‑on applications, for example an application to cross examine the respondent on their asset disclosure or in due course an application for committal for contempt of court, if asset disclosure is found to be incomplete, inadequate or false.

Practical sequencing and playbooks for pharma use‑cases

Fraud

Run immediate containment and evidence capture. If platforms or intermediaries hold key identifiers, use a Norwich Pharmacal order targeted at account, IP and fulfilment data to unmask actors. Where funds are moving, follow with Bankers Trust orders to map the flow and support freezing; consolidate with Bankers’ Books orders once proceedings are imminent.

Supply‑chain disruption

Start with contractual audit rights and operational logs. If not immediately urgent, voluntary and non‑confrontational routes are the best starting point. If diversion is suspected, grey‑market leakage or sabotage, deploy Norwich Pharmacal orders on marketplaces, payment processors and logistics providers for shipment, account and contact data. Use targeted imaging orders only where there is concrete risk of tampering with quality or batch‑release records that threaten continuity of supply.

Reputational damage (smear campaigns, leaked documents, manipulated safety signals) 

Preserve posts and metadata, issue takedown notices to online service providers, and move quickly for Norwich Pharmacal orders against social platforms, hosts and email providers to identify originators. Consider search/imaging orders if there is credible evidence that insiders are deleting or exfiltrating materials.

Theft (stock, IP, data)

Pair rapid internal forensics with proportionate imaging of suspect devices and cloud accounts. Where the theft links to monetisation, seek Bankers Trust orders to trace proceeds, and – if there is risk of dissipation – apply for freezing with ancillary asset disclosure.

Insolvency (distressed counterparties or insolvent distributors)

Combine insolvency office‑holder powers with third‑party routes. Bankers Trust orders can reveal recent dissipation paths; Bankers’ Books orders put admissible records before the court. Norwich Pharmacal orders may identify controllers behind asset‑light structures or shadow operators.

Litigation and Arbitration

Use Bankers’ Books orders to assemble banking evidence once pleadings are near. Norwich Pharmacal orders identify additional defendants or arbitration respondents. Returns from asset disclosure orders shape settlement dynamics and enforcement planning across borders.

Proportionality, privacy, and data protection

Courts typically require applicants to implement confidentiality protections, and redactions to protect third‑party privacy and employee data. For pharmaceutical companies, that often means segregating patient‑level data and minimising personal data capture to what is necessary. Protect confidential and commercially sensitive data and build safeguards into your draft orders so the court can see you have balanced investigative needs against privacy impacts. Where overseas data or custodians are involved, address local‑law constraints explicitly.

Cross‑border realities

Many investigations span multiple jurisdictions. English courts may order disclosure from foreign parties, especially in pursuit of assets with a sufficient connection to the jurisdiction. You must show England is the right forum, the respondent is within reach, and local‑law objections do not outweigh the interests of justice.

Timelines, costs, and readiness

The fastest applications are those backed by evidential narrative and a plan to protect confidentiality. Courts move fastest where there is real risk; otherwise assume weeks from instruction to order – longer if contested. Costs are lower when requests are focused, documentation is precise, and voluntary routes credibly attempted first.

Common pitfalls and how to avoid them

Disproportionality is the main reason orders are cut back or refused. Focus on what you need to progress the investigation one step, not everything you might ever want. Avoid “fishing” by defining categories with specificity, tied to dates, actors, and transactions. For urgent orders, honour the duty of full and frank disclosure by addressing weaknesses head‑on. Finally, plan for compliance: the more workable your proposed order is for the third party, the more likely the court is to grant it.

Delay can be fatal.  Upon discovery of suspicious circumstances or facts which require investigation, take urgent steps to consider what information is needed and how it can be obtained by reference to the above. 

Building an internal toolkit

The most effective teams use a playbook: standard evidence packs; pre‑agreed confidentiality and redaction protocols; a ready team familiar with the issues; and escalation matrices for when to move from voluntary engagement to compulsory disclosure.

Key takeaways

These disclosure routes can be fast and targeted when used correctly. Norwich Pharmacal orders help identify wrongdoers and unlock platform‑held data. Bankers Trust orders trace misappropriated funds quickly and precisely, while Bankers’ Books orders supply certified banking evidence once proceedings are on foot. Search and imaging orders preserve fragile evidence in exceptional, high‑risk scenarios. Asset disclosure orders police freezing relief and flush out recoverable value.

Applied thoughtfully, these tools can give pharmaceutical compliance and risk teams the leverage they need to secure facts and move decisively against misconduct and wrongdoing.