Smithkline Beecham Plc/BASF AG v Generics (UK) Limited / Smithkline Beecham Plc: CA 25 Jul 2003

The claimant had been involved in patent infringement proceedings. Papers had been disclosed to them under confidentiality conditions imposed by the judge. In these subsequent proceedings, they sought leave to use the material.
Held: An order was made under rule 31.22 permitting such use. Where the papers had not properly formed part of the court’s judgment, it was appropriate that the confidentiality restriction should remain. However, it was possible for the judge to make them available for the specific second proceedings. The general protection would not be lost by the involvement of the defendant in the second proceedings, because they could be made subject to a similar order. The interests of justice were paramount. The owner’s proper interests could be protected and justice could not be done without their disclosure.
Lord Justice Aldous Lord Justice Chadwick Lord Justice Latham
[2003] EWCA Civ 1109, Times 25-Aug-2003, Gazette 11-Sep-2003, [2003] 4 All ER 1302, [2004] 1 WLR 1479
Civil Procedure Rules 31.22.(2)
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedMcKennitt and others v Ash and Another QBD 21-Dec-2005
The claimant sought to restrain publication by the defendant of a book recounting very personal events in her life. She claimed privacy and a right of confidence. The defendant argued that there was a public interest in the disclosures.
Held: . .
CitedTchenguiz v Director of The Serious Fraud Office and Others CA 31-Oct-2014
The appellant challenged an order of the Commercial Court refusing permission for documents disclosed in English litigation to be used in litigation proceedings in Guernsey. The principal issue is whether the judge correctly weighed up the . .
CitedArcadia Group Ltd and Others v Telegraph Media Group Ltd QBD 8-Feb-2019
Claimant’s application for leave to withdraw request for injunction to prevent publication of stories regarding matters subject to non-disclosure agreements.
Held: Granted. An junction had been granted, but Lord Hain had disclosed protected . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 18 October 2021; Ref: scu.185459