Tooley v Times Media Ltd [2026] EWHC 675 (KB)
The Times published an article on 8 February 2025 with the headline “wife of anti-woke professor says she was “bullied” by police”. The article was based on a video recording made by the Claimant which opened with the words “if you’re receiving this, you’re obviously a very close friend of mine”.
The Claimant sent a letter of claim to the Times on 17 November 2025, alleging defamation and malicious falsehood and claiming damages not exceeding £150,000. The Claimant issued the claim on 1 December 2025.
Following the issue of the claim, the Claimant filed an application for an interim injunction and a Norwich Pharmacal application. For the purposes of this blog, I have focused on the Claimant’s Norwich Pharmacal application.
On 8 January 2026, the Claimant provided the Times with an unsealed copy of her Norwich Pharmacal application, which is an application in which she asked them to disclose the identity of the person who supplied the video recording to them.
It is common ground that three basic conditions need to be satisfied for the court to exercise Norwich Pharmacal relief. These are:
- A wrong must have been carried out, or arguably carried out, by an ultimate wrongdoer – the applicant has to demonstrate a good arguable case that a form of legally recognised wrong has been committed. This requires more than “an honest and reasonable belief that there has been wrongdoing”;
- There must be the need for an order to enable an action to be brought against the ultimate wrongdoer – this is sometimes referred to as the test of necessity. The need to disclose will be found to exist only if it is a “necessary and proportionate response in all the circumstances”; and
- The person against whom the order is sought must be mixed up in so as to have facilitated the wrongdoing and be able or likely to be able to provide the information necessary to enable the ultimate wrongdoer to be pursued.
Even if the three conditions are satisfied, the court still retains discretion. It is for the applicant to satisfy the court that requiring disclosure of the wrongdoer is an appropriate and proportionate response in all the circumstances of the case.
The Judge in this case helpfully summarised some factors relevant to the exercise of the court’s discretion including: the strength of the cause of action against the wrongdoer; whether the information can be obtained from another source; and the public interest in maintaining confidentiality of journalistic sources.
Section 10 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 states:
“No court may require a person to disclose, nor is any person guilty of contempt of court for refusing to disclose, the source of information contained in a publication for which he is responsible, unless it be established to the satisfaction of the court that disclosure is necessary in the interests of justice or national security or for the prevention of disorder or crime.”
The Claimant submitted that a Norwich Pharmacal order was necessary because, although she knew the identity of the person to whom she sent the video, she could not be certain of the Times’ source as the recording may have been obtained through hacking or an intermediary.
The Defendant submitted that the necessity requirement for a Norwich Pharmacal order was not met because the Claimant had already identified the person she asserted was the source and had taken no steps to ask that person whether she disclosed the recording.
The Judge ultimately agreed with the Defendant’s analysis and held that necessity had not been established. Further, the Judge was not persuaded that it was in the interests of justice to require the strong protection against disclosure of journalistic sources to be overridden under Section 10 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981. The Claimant’s application was therefore dismissed.
Comment
This case is a useful reminder of what the Court consider when deciding whether to exercise Norwich Pharmacal relief.
How can we help?
Ruby Raine-Ellerker is a Senior Associate in our expert Dispute Resolution team, specialising in data breach claims, inheritance and Trust disputes and defamation claims.
If you need any advice, please do not hesitate to contact Ruby or another member of the team in Derby, Leicester, or Nottingham on 0800 024 1976 or via our our online enquiry form.
Contact usIf this article relates to a specific case/cases, please note that the facts of this case/cases are correct at the time of writing.