Boulbet v Sumup Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: High Court
• Judge: Mr Justice Nolan
• Judgment Date: 20 May 2025
• Neutral Citation: [2025] IEHC 285
• Docket Number: 2024 3176 P

Between

Jean Pierre Boulbet

Plaintiff

and

Sumup Limited

Defendant

[2025] IEHC 285

2024 3176 P

THE HIGH COURT

Norwich Pharmacal order – Jurisdiction – Delay – Plaintiff seeking orders requiring the defendant to provide certain categories of information, details and documents – Whether the courts had jurisdiction to make the order for a Norwich Pharmacal order to include photograph identification documentation

Facts: The plaintiff, Mr Boulbet, sought orders requiring the defendant, Sumup Ltd, to provide certain categories of information, details and documents which he submitted would identify unknown individuals who had allegedly perpetrated a fraud on him so as to allow him to pursue and/or recover against them. The defendant consented to those reliefs on the basis of undertakings which it required in line with the jurisprudence. It was the third relief which gave rise to the dispute between the parties. It read as follows: “(iii) A copy of the documentation provided to open the Bank Accounts set out in the Schedule including identity verification documentation.” The plaintiff argued that he was entitled to the documents under category (iii) either pursuant to an Norwich Pharmacal Order (NPO) or alternatively by way of a Bankers Trust Order. The defendant said that category (iii) was a duplicate of the relief sought in category (i), but further said that the disclosure obligations ought not be wider than what is necessary; the order of the production of documents to open the accounts goes beyond the jurisprudence.

Held by the High Court (Nolan J) that there had been some delay in the case, but he did not think it was fatal to the application. The factors that he took into account in that regard included the ongoing correspondence between the plaintiff and the defendant on the issue, going back over many months, and the fact that the plaintiff was a French national, and had been attempting to engage with the civil and criminal procedures in a number of EU countries. All of that took time and therefore, Nolan J did not believe that the delay should be fatal to the application. Therefore, applying the principles set out in Kyriakou v Christie Manson & Woods Ltd [2017] EWHC 487 (QB), it seemed to him that the provision of photographic type documentation would give real prospect to leading to the location and preservation of the plaintiff’s assets. By so restricting the order to just a photo identification document, Nolan J made it no wider than was necessary, taking on board the views of Collins J in Blythe v Commissioner of An Garda Síochána [2023] IECA 255. Nolan J balanced the plaintiff's interest against those who perpetrated the crime. Nolan J held that the plaintiff must give the appropriate undertakings. Nolan J held that the information could only be used by the plaintiff and in the restrictive circumstances of seeking to return his assets.

Nolan J was satisfied to make the order sought in regard to category (iii) under both headings. It seemed to him that the courts had jurisdiction to make the order for an NPO to include photograph identification documentation and also had jurisdiction to make the order in the form of a Bankers Trust Order. Accordingly, he made the order sought in relation to categories (i), (ii) and (iii) under both headings.

Order granted.

JUDGEMENT of Mr Justice Nolan delivered on the 20 ^th day of May, 2025

1 . In these proceedings, the Plaintiff who is a retired gentleman and a French citizen residing in France, seeks orders requiring the Defendant to provide certain categories of information, details and documents which he submits will identify unknown individuals who have allegedly perpetrated a fraud on him so as to allow him to pursue and/or recover against them. No other substantive relief is sought against the Defendant.

2 . The Defendant carries out business in the State as a banking and financial institution, a financial intermediary, and a digital or online bank.

3 . In 2021, the Plaintiff sold some investment property and decided to reinvest the proceeds. He responded to what he believed was an investment opportunity advertised on social media. He was then contacted by an individual who identified himself as Nicolas Becker. Mr. Becker purported to represent Skandia Bank in Berlin, Germany. Following engagement with this person, the Plaintiff decided to initially invest approximately €280,000 into what he believed to be investment vehicles to acquire care home facilities in Spain. To make the investment, he transferred from his personal and company bank accounts which he owned, to various bank accounts located in Spain with Caixa Bank, Santander Bank, and Bilbao Viscaya. These transfers all occurred between the 19 ^th of March 2021 and the 23 ^rd of June 2021. The investments were capable of being monitored and tracked through digital online “ portals” and tracking tables, which identified the return on investment and profits made, which the Plaintiff duly used from time-to-time. All of this, no doubt reassured him as to the legitimacy of the transactions.

4 . In June of 2021, the Plaintiff was contacted by email by an individual who identified himself as Stefan Lemercier, who purported to represent Santander Bank in Paris. He was advised by M. Lemercier that the investments he had made with the three banks were, in fact, fraudulent and that he should withdraw his investments. At approximately the same time, he discovered he was unable to access the previously accessible digital online ‘ portals’ to track his investments. On foot of the representations and advice of the said M. Lemercier, the Plaintiff withdrew his funds. He was then convinced by the same man to purchase various investment products from Santander Bank, which were advertised in portfolio documents provided to him and which were branded with the logo of the bank.

5 . To make the investments, the Plaintiff was instructed to transfer funds to a number of Irish bank accounts opened with the Defendant. Additional transfers on the same basis were made to a range of other accounts across the European Union, totalling approximately €1,500,000. The transfers relevant to this application occurred between the 18 ^th of December 2021 and the 22 ^nd of February 2022 and totalled approximately €390,000.

6 . In August of 2022, the Plaintiff attempted to contact M. Lemercier, by telephoning Santander Bank at its Paris branch. He was informed that no person by that name worked for the bank. This was subsequently confirmed in writing. It became apparent to him that he had been the victim of a fraud or a scam, not once but twice.

7 . The Plaintiff received no further contact from M. Lemercier, if that is his real name. The Plaintiff made criminal complaints to the relevant authorities and retained legal counsel in various EU countries in which he had invested in this manner. This included Portugal, Lithuania, France, Spain, and Ireland. Investigations into these complaints are ongoing. The real identities of Mr. Becker and M. Lemercier remain unknown.

8 . The Plaintiff makes the case that in order to further pursue the perpetrators of the fraud, it is necessary to obtain the information sought in the Notice of Motion.

The Notice of Motion

9 . The Plaintiff seeks certain reliefs in order to attempt to recover his money. These include the following:

“(i) The name, address, date of birth, email address(es), and telephone number(s) of the person or persons who opened the Bank Accounts set out in the Schedule to the Notice of Motion and any beneficiary or beneficiaries of the said accounts, and

(ii) Details of all transactions and payments that have been made into or out of the Bank Accounts set out in the Schedule to the Notice of Motion, including the details of any person or persons mandating such payments and the details of such person or persons to whom funds were transferred.”

10 . The Defendant consents to these reliefs on the basis of undertakings which it requires in line with the jurisprudence. It is, however, the third relief which gives rise to the dispute between the parties. It reads as follows:

“(iii) A copy of the documentation provided to open the Bank Accounts set out in the Schedule including identity verification documentation.”

The Legal Principles

11 . There are two major legal principles at play in this application. The first relates to what is known as a Norwich Pharmacal Order (“NPO”), whilst the second is known as a Banker's Trust Order. As the case law shows, there is a subtle but distinct difference between the two types of orders.

12 . A NPO is a form of order which derives from the case of Norwich Pharmacal Co. v Commissioners of Customs and Excise [1974] AC 133, approved in Ireland in Megaleasing UK Ltd. v Barrett [1993] ILRM 497 (“ Megaleasing”).

13 . A NPO compels a Defendant to provide specified information that would assist to identify a third party who has committed an actionable wrong against the Plaintiff. The purpose of a NPO is to place a Plaintiff in a position to identify and seek redress against a previously unknown wrongdoer.

14 . The most recent authoritative case in this jurisdiction on the availability of NPOs is Blythe v Commissioner of An Garda Síochána [2023] IECA 255 (“ Blythe”). In Blythe, the court was required to consider an application by the Plaintiff for disclosure of material held by the Defendant in respect of its investigation into allegedly defamatory publications by third parties.

15 . In delivering the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Collins J. identified certain principles deriving from the case law on NPOs to date:

• (i) Firstly, the Plaintiff seeking a NPO should demonstrate that he or she has a strong case against the alleged wrongdoer,

• (ii) The Plaintiff should establish that the Defendant had some involvement in the allegedly wrongful transaction such that, absent such...