Glaxo Wellcome UK Ltd (t/a Allen & Hanburys) & Anor v Sandoz Ltd & Ors [2018] EWHC 1626 (Ch) (12 June 2018)

Glaxo Wellcome UK Ltd (t/a Allen & Hanburys) & Anor v Sandoz Ltd & Ors [2018] EWHC 1626 (Ch) (12 June 2018)

The court ordered the defendants to provide a full explanation, based on first-hand knowledge, regarding the destruction of the DocXChange platform, as the duty of disclosure extends to documents formerly in a party's control and the evidence provided was insufficient. The court declined to order further responses to the notice to admit facts at this stage, adjourning that part of the application, but ordered the defendants to provide a list identifying which disclosed documents are relevant by content to reduce the claimants' review burden.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 1626 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Glaxo Wellcome UK Limited (T/A Allen & Hanburys); Claimant: Glaxo Group Limited; Defendant: Sandoz Limited; Defendant: Sandoz International GmbH; Defendant: Aeropharm GmbH; Defendant: Hexal AG
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 June 2018
Procedural Posture
Passing Off Claim (intellectual Property) / Interlocutory Application (disclosure and Notice to Admit Facts)
Outcome
Application granted in part, adjourned in part.
Legal Topics
Disclosure of Documents, Notice to Admit Facts, Case Management, Passing Off
Intellectual Property Civil Procedure Disclosure of Documents Notice to Admit Facts Case Management Passing Off

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Glaxo Wellcome UK Limited (T/A Allen & Hanburys)

Claimant

Glaxo Group Limited

Claimant

Sandoz Limited

Defendant

Sandoz International GmbH

Defendant

Aeropharm GmbH

Defendant

Hexal AG

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Passing Off Claim (intellectual Property) / Interlocutory Application (disclosure and Notice to Admit Facts)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants must provide a further explanation regarding deletion of the DocXChange platform and its contents
  2. 2 Whether the defendants should be compelled to provide further responses to a notice to admit facts
  3. 3 Whether the defendants must clarify which disclosed documents are relevant by content versus contextual

Ratio Decidendi

The court ordered the defendants to provide a full explanation, based on first-hand knowledge, regarding the destruction of the DocXChange platform, as the duty of disclosure extends to documents formerly in a party's control and the evidence provided was insufficient. The court declined to order further responses to the notice to admit facts at this stage, adjourning that part of the application, but ordered the defendants to provide a list identifying which disclosed documents are relevant by content to reduce the claimants' review burden.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part, adjourned in part.

Orders

  • Defendants to provide a full explanation, based on first-hand knowledge, regarding the destruction of the DocXChange platform.
  • Defendants to provide a list identifying which disclosed documents are relevant by content.