Commonwealth of Australia v Sanofi (formerly Sanofi-Aventis) (No 2) [2017] FCA 711

Commonwealth of Australia v Sanofi (formerly Sanofi-Aventis) (No 2) [2017] FCA 711

Parts of the documents over which legal professional privilege was claimed were prepared for the dominant purpose of providing legal advice and are privileged; however, privilege in some of those parts was waived by reason of Sanofi's disclosures to representatives of the Commonwealth at a meeting on 21 April 2010, and documents or portions not shown to be privileged were not protected and must be disclosed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 June 2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Access to Documents/interlocutory / Ruling on Legal Professional Privilege Claims and Disclosure
Outcome
Application by Commonwealth of Australia for access to documents largely granted; claims for privilege in some materials upheld, but privilege waived or not established in others.
Legal Topics
['legal Professional Privilege' 'waiver of Privilege' 'copyright in Product Information and Consumer Medicine Information' 'disclosure and Access to Documents']
['intellectual Property' 'evidence'] ['legal Professional Privilege' 'waiver of Privilege' 'copyright in Product Information and Consumer Medicine Information' 'disclosure and Access to Documents']

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 Access to Documents/interlocutory / Ruling on Legal Professional Privilege Claims and Disclosure

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether documents were prepared for the dominant purpose of obtaining or providing legal advice and thus privileged' 'Whether legal professional privilege in those documents was waived by disclosure to representatives of the Commonwealth']

Ratio Decidendi

Parts of the documents over which legal professional privilege was claimed were prepared for the dominant purpose of providing legal advice and are privileged; however, privilege in some of those parts was waived by reason of Sanofi's disclosures to representatives of the Commonwealth at a meeting on 21 April 2010, and documents or portions not shown to be privileged were not protected and must be disclosed.

Court Disposition

Application by Commonwealth of Australia for access to documents largely granted; claims for privilege in some materials upheld, but privilege waived or not established in others.

Orders

  • ['Respondents to serve on the applicant and provide to court a revised version of MFI-1 redacting only material where privilege remains upheld by 4.00pm, 27 June 2017.' "Respondents to pay the applicant's costs of and incidental to the application for access to MFI-1."]