Glaxo Wellcome UK Ltd (t/a Allen & Hanburys) & Anor v Sandoz Ltd & Ors

Glaxo Wellcome UK Ltd (t/a Allen & Hanburys) & Anor v Sandoz Ltd & Ors

The court ordered the defendants to provide a full explanation, based on first-hand evidence, regarding the deletion of the DocXChange platform, as the duty of disclosure extends to documents no longer in the party's control and the explanation provided was insufficient. The court declined to order the defendants to respond further to the notice to admit facts at this stage, adjourning that part of the application, and ordered the defendants to provide clarification on which disclosed documents are contextual versus relevant under the standard disclosure test.

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
Civil Intellectual Property / Interlocutory Application (disclosure and Case Management Orders)
Outcome
Application allowed in part, refused in part, and 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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
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

Civil Intellectual Property / Interlocutory Application (disclosure and Case Management Orders)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants must provide a full explanation for deletion of the DocXChange platform and its documents
  2. 2 Whether the defendants should be compelled to respond further to a notice to admit facts
  3. 3 Whether the defendants should provide clarification regarding families of disclosed documents

Ratio Decidendi

The court ordered the defendants to provide a full explanation, based on first-hand evidence, regarding the deletion of the DocXChange platform, as the duty of disclosure extends to documents no longer in the party's control and the explanation provided was insufficient. The court declined to order the defendants to respond further to the notice to admit facts at this stage, adjourning that part of the application, and ordered the defendants to provide clarification on which disclosed documents are contextual versus relevant under the standard disclosure test.

Court Disposition

Application allowed in part, refused in part, and adjourned in part.

Orders

  • Defendants to provide a full explanation, based on first-hand evidence, regarding the deletion of the DocXChange platform and its documents.
  • Defendants to provide a list identifying which disclosed documents are contextual and which fall within the standard disclosure test.