Bristol Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland UnLtd Company v Norton (Waterford) Ltd (Approved) [2024] IECA 49 (01 March 2024)

Bristol Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland UnLtd Company v Norton (Waterford) Ltd (Approved) [2024] IECA 49 (01 March 2024)

The Court of Appeal held that the High Court erred in requiring the plaintiff to extend its undertaking as to damages to cover losses suffered by related companies of the defendant who are not parties to the proceedings. The court found that there was no sufficient evidential basis identifying the relevant entities or the nature of the losses, and that such an extension is not the established practice in Irish law. The undertaking as to damages should be limited to the losses suffered by the defendant/respondent only, unless exceptional circumstances are established by clear evidence.

Citation
[2024] IECA 49
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Bristol Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company; Defendant/respondent: Norton (Waterford) Limited t/a Teva Pharmaceuticals Ireland
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
01 March 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Order Regarding Scope of Undertaking as to Damages in Interlocutory Injunction
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Injunctions, Undertaking as to Damages, Scope of Undertakings, Third Party Losses, Patent Law
Intellectual Property Civil Procedure Interlocutory Injunctions Undertaking as to Damages Scope of Undertakings Third Party Losses Patent Law

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 5 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bristol Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company

Plaintiff/appellant

Norton (Waterford) Limited t/a Teva Pharmaceuticals Ireland

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Order Regarding Scope of Undertaking as to Damages in Interlocutory Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the undertaking as to damages required from the plaintiff in support of an interlocutory injunction should extend to losses suffered by related companies of the defendant who are not parties to the proceedings.
  2. 2 What evidential and legal standards apply to the extension of such undertakings to non-parties.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the High Court erred in requiring the plaintiff to extend its undertaking as to damages to cover losses suffered by related companies of the defendant who are not parties to the proceedings. The court found that there was no sufficient evidential basis identifying the relevant entities or the nature of the losses, and that such an extension is not the established practice in Irish law. The undertaking as to damages should be limited to the losses suffered by the defendant/respondent only, unless exceptional circumstances are established by clear evidence.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order of the High Court requiring the plaintiff to extend its undertaking as to damages to related companies of the defendant is set aside.
  • Undertaking as to damages is limited to losses suffered by the defendant/respondent only.