The Chief Inspector of Social Services v Raidió Teilifís Éireann

RTÉ provided reports on the footage to HIQA, the HSA, An Garda Síochána, and the corporate group which owned both nursing homes. Subsequently they also broadcast anonymized extracts of this footage in June 2025 in their programme RTÉ Investigates: Inside Ireland's Nursing Homes (the 'Broadcast').

The Chief Inspector of Social Services ('CISS') is a statutory officeholder under the Health Act 2007 who has responsibility for the registration and inspection of nursing homes and for ensuring compliance with the statutory regime governing designated centres. Following the Broadcast, the CISS sought a Norwich Pharmacal order directing the release of the full unedited footage to them for the purposes of regulatory enforcement against the nursing home provider. While the CISS can compel nursing home providers to disclose information[1], it has no similar powers to compel third parties to release information.

RTÉ neither accepted nor objected to the reliefs that were sought, but maintained that they could not release the recorded material without a court order as otherwise they would be in breach of GDPR. Notably RTÉ welcomed the commencement of regulatory action against the nursing home provider and agreed prior to the hearing, on a without-prejudice basis, to the terms of a draft order to be made but on the basis that if any order is made it should be carefully limited and should not require disclosure of the unedited footage to the nursing homes/designated centres.

Proceedings

Norwich Pharmacal applications compel a third party to release information identifying someone who has wronged the plaintiff for the purposes of bringing proceedings against that wrongdoer. To succeed, an application must meet four criteria:

1. There must be clear and unambiguous proof of wrongdoing
2. The defendant must be 'mixed up in' the wrongdoing, even if they are not liable
3. It must be likely that the defendant possesses the information, which is necessary to bring proceedings
4. The order must be necessary and proportionate

This application was atypical in that, in addition to identifying wrongdoers, the CISS also sought to clarify whether additional wrongdoing was present in the unedited footage. Secondly the information was being sought for the purposes of regulatory enforcement, rather than for the CISS to seek redress. Finally, the Court had to examine the 'mixed up in' requirement, as the researchers were neither 'involved in' nor 'facilitated' the wrongdoing. In fact their aim was to expose that wrongdoing.

While the Court noted that Norwich Pharmacal orders should never facilitate a 'fishing expedition' to search for wrongdoing, it found that in exceptional circumstances an order could be granted where specific evidence was sought to confirm whether a complaint was well-founded if the plaintiff has substantial grounds for believing that this is the case.

The Court held that in this case the CISS required the unedited footage to confirm reasonably suspected wrongdoing in the broadcast; other potential wrongdoing in the complete unedited footage; and whether further regulatory action would be well-founded. 

The Court considered whether the use of Norwich Pharmacal orders was appropriate to pursue regulatory enforcement rather than civil proceedings. The Court held that Norwich Pharmacal Orders could be used in relation to 'all forms of legally cognisable wrongs'[2]. In support of this the Court cited the case of Ashworth Hospital Authority v MGN Ltd[3] where the plaintiff hospital sought an order against a newspaper to reveal the identity of a hospital employee who had leaked documents. In that case the hospital sought to dismiss the employee, rather than to bring civil proceedings. The court discussed this in relation to the CISS's specific position as a regulator of social services, and found that their 'exercise of statutory function can be equated with taking action to protect oneself against wrongdoing'[4].

The Court found that the need to satisfy the 'mixed up in' pre-condition was the most controversial aspect of the case. Previous caselaw had held that there had to be near-causal conduct by a defendant such that, but for their involvement, the wrongdoing would not have taken place in the manner that it did. However in its analysis, the Court found that this rule was primarily concerned with preventing public bodies that have investigative duties, such as the police being exposed to Norwich Pharmacal applications by private litigants if investigation alone was sufficient to be 'mixed up in' the wrongdoing. The Court found that this situation was the opposite, as it was a body with an investigative duty that was applying for an order so as to fulfil that duty, and held that RTÉ's role was of 'significant involvement' beyond that of a witness or bystander. Although RTÉ did not facilitate any wrongdoing, it did place undercover researchers into the Nursing Homes with the express purpose of capturing footage of the suspected wrongdoing.

Acknowledging that it was developing the potential application of Norwich Pharmacal orders, albeit incrementally, the Court extended the 'mixed up in' condition from requiring the defendant's causal involvement in the wrongdoing, to requiring that they are 'actively engaged' in the circumstances. The Court made reference to the fact that this is an equitable relief and the 'requirements of flexibility and pragmatism demand the order made'.

Conclusion

Ms. Justice Egan granted the order based on the draft order which had been agreed between the parties. However, it is noteworthy that RTÉ did not allege that the granting of the order would infringe journalistic privilege or freedom of expression, so it remains to be seen how the courts would approach such an application if it was contested by a broadcaster.

[1] s. 65 Health Act 2007

[2] [2026] IEHC 445 at [59]

[3] [2002] UKHL 29

[4] [2026] IEHC 445 at [67]