Ansell Healthcare Products LLC v Reckitt Benckiser (Australia) Pty Limited [2016] FCA 506

Ansell Healthcare Products LLC v Reckitt Benckiser (Australia) Pty Limited [2016] FCA 506

Ansell's solicitors' letter of 12 May 2014 did not disclose the contents of any privileged communication and amounted only to a general pre-litigation assertion of Ansell's case; even if it implied some TEM testing had occurred, it was not inconsistent with maintaining privilege in the detailed test results. The privileged reports were also not shown to be sufficiently relevant to the interlocutory application to withdraw admissions because prior test results would not resolve the expert dispute or determine whether new admissible TEM testing would be needed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 April 2016
Procedural Posture
Intellectual Property Patents and Associated Statutes / Interlocutory Application Seeking Production of Documents Showing Details and Results of TEM Tests
Outcome
The interlocutory application to compel production of documents was dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['legal Professional Privilege' 'waiver of Privilege' 'interlocutory Production of Documents' 'withdrawal of Admissions' 'patent Infringement']
['evidence' 'intellectual Property' 'patents'] ['legal Professional Privilege' 'waiver of Privilege' 'interlocutory Production of Documents' 'withdrawal of Admissions' 'patent Infringement']

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

Intellectual Property Patents and Associated Statutes / Interlocutory Application Seeking Production of Documents Showing Details and Results of TEM Tests

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether Ansell waived legal professional privilege in TEM test results by assertions made in its solicitors' pre-litigation letter dated 12 May 2014." "Whether documents showing details and results of TEM tests performed on the Durex product should be produced urgently for Reckitt's application to withdraw admissions." 'Whether the privileged reports were sufficiently relevant to the interlocutory application to withdraw admissions.']

Ratio Decidendi

Ansell's solicitors' letter of 12 May 2014 did not disclose the contents of any privileged communication and amounted only to a general pre-litigation assertion of Ansell's case; even if it implied some TEM testing had occurred, it was not inconsistent with maintaining privilege in the detailed test results. The privileged reports were also not shown to be sufficiently relevant to the interlocutory application to withdraw admissions because prior test results would not resolve the expert dispute or determine whether new admissible TEM testing would be needed.

Court Disposition

The interlocutory application to compel production of documents was dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The interlocutory application filed on 5 April 2016 be dismissed.' "The respondents pay the applicants' costs of the interlocutory application."]