Astex Therapeutics Ltd v Astrazeneca AB

Astex Therapeutics Ltd v Astrazeneca AB

AZ's claim to legal advice privilege over attendance notes of conversations with employees and ex-employees is not justified under current law; litigation privilege requires further evidence regarding the date from which it applies and the dominant purpose. AZ must provide a detailed witness statement by a proper officer specifying the documents, dates, persons interviewed, and the basis for privilege claims.

Parties
Claimant: Astex Therapeutics Limited; Defendant: AstraZeneca AB
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 November 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application for Further and Better Particulars Regarding Privilege Claims
Outcome
Application granted in part; AZ ordered to provide further evidence and particulars regarding privilege claims.
Legal Topics
Disclosure, Legal Professional Privilege, Litigation Privilege, Legal Advice Privilege
Civil Procedure Contract Law Disclosure Legal Professional Privilege Litigation Privilege Legal Advice Privilege

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Astex Therapeutics Limited

Claimant

AstraZeneca AB

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application for Further and Better Particulars Regarding Privilege Claims

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether AZ is entitled to claim legal advice privilege over attendance notes of conversations with employees and ex-employees
  2. 2 Whether litigation privilege applies and from what date
  3. 3 Whether AZ's claim to privilege is sufficiently particularised and justified

Ratio Decidendi

AZ's claim to legal advice privilege over attendance notes of conversations with employees and ex-employees is not justified under current law; litigation privilege requires further evidence regarding the date from which it applies and the dominant purpose. AZ must provide a detailed witness statement by a proper officer specifying the documents, dates, persons interviewed, and the basis for privilege claims.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part; AZ ordered to provide further evidence and particulars regarding privilege claims.

Orders

  • AZ to provide a witness statement by a proper officer detailing the documents over which privilege is claimed, the date of creation, identification of employees and ex-employees interviewed, marking of privilege type for each document, and further evidence about litigation privilege including when it arises.
  • AZ to confirm no privilege is claimed for documents created before 1 January 2015.