SmithKline Beecham (Australia) Pty Ltd v Chipman [2003] FCA 796

SmithKline Beecham (Australia) Pty Ltd v Chipman [2003] FCA 796

Professor Charman's links with SmithKline, direct or via Sigma, are insufficient to preclude him from being treated as an independent expert for the purpose of access to confidential material; such matters go to weight, not admissibility. There is no significant risk he would misuse confidential information. His initial statement should be supplemented to clarify affiliations, but exclusion is not warranted.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 July 2003
Procedural Posture
Application for Judicial Review / Interlocutory Motion (notice of Motion by Fourth Respondent)
Outcome
Application (notice of motion) by fourth respondent dismissed.
Legal Topics
['judicial Review' 'expert Evidence' 'confidentiality Regime' 'independence of Expert Witnesses']
['administrative Law' 'practice and Procedure'] ['judicial Review' 'expert Evidence' 'confidentiality Regime' 'independence of Expert Witnesses']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Judicial Review / Interlocutory Motion (notice of Motion by Fourth Respondent)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicants' proposed witness, Professor Charman, is relevantly 'independent' for access to confidential material under a confidentiality regime" "Whether links between Professor Charman, SmithKline, and Sigma disqualify him as an 'independent expert'"]

Ratio Decidendi

Professor Charman's links with SmithKline, direct or via Sigma, are insufficient to preclude him from being treated as an independent expert for the purpose of access to confidential material; such matters go to weight, not admissibility. There is no significant risk he would misuse confidential information. His initial statement should be supplemented to clarify affiliations, but exclusion is not warranted.

Court Disposition

Application (notice of motion) by fourth respondent dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The notice of motion filed on 27 June 2003 by the fourth respondent be dismissed.' "The fourth respondent pay the applicants' costs of and incidental to the notice of motion."]