Roche Diagnostics Ltd against Greater Glasgow Health Board and another (Court of Session) [2024] CSOH 95 (08 October 2024)

Roche Diagnostics Ltd against Greater Glasgow Health Board and another (Court of Session) [2024] CSOH 95 (08 October 2024)

Leave to reclaim was refused because the issues raised did not present questions of general importance, the law was settled or fact-specific, and the risk of prejudice to the defenders could be addressed at trial; case management considerations also weighed against granting leave at this stage.

Citation
[2024] CSOH 95
Parties
Pursuer: Roche Diagnostics Limited; First Defender: Greater Glasgow Health Board; Second Defender: Abbott Laboratories Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
08 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Commercial Action / Application for Leave to Reclaim (appeal) Interlocutory Decisions
Outcome
Leave to reclaim refused
Legal Topics
Waiver of Privilege, Without Prejudice Privilege, Document Recovery, Unlawful Means Conspiracy, Relevancy of Pleadings
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Evidence Waiver of Privilege Without Prejudice Privilege Document Recovery Unlawful Means Conspiracy Relevancy of Pleadings

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Roche Diagnostics Limited

Pursuer

Greater Glasgow Health Board

First Defender

Abbott Laboratories Limited

Second Defender

Procedural Posture

Commercial Action / Application for Leave to Reclaim (appeal) Interlocutory Decisions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to reclaim (appeal) should be granted regarding waiver of privilege
  2. 2 Whether leave to reclaim should be granted regarding without prejudice privilege
  3. 3 Whether leave to reclaim should be granted regarding relevancy of unlawful means and conspiracy averments

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to reclaim was refused because the issues raised did not present questions of general importance, the law was settled or fact-specific, and the risk of prejudice to the defenders could be addressed at trial; case management considerations also weighed against granting leave at this stage.

Court Disposition

Leave to reclaim refused

Orders

  • Defenders refused leave to reclaim (appeal) the decisions dated 20 September 2024 and earlier decision on relevancy of unlawful means and conspiracy averments.