Dr Reddy’s Laboratories (UK) Limited & others v Warner-Lambert Company LLC [2022] EWHC 1856 (Ch)
This interim decision was concerned with the appropriate terms of a ‘confidentiality ring’ for the purposes of disclosure of documents containing confidential information in the course of litigation. The particular question was whether external lawyers (namely, UK solicitors and counsel instructed in the action) should have to provide signed undertakings as a condition for entry into the confidentiality ring.
Mr Justice Zacaroli held that the appropriate terms of such a confidentiality ring were to be determined in accordance with the principles articulated by the Court of Appeal in OnePlus Technology (Shenzen) Co Ltd v Mitsubishi Electric Corporation [2020] EWCA Civ 1562, and that it is for the party seeking to impose confidentiality restrictions to justify them (see [6], [20] and [28]).
The Court held that where the confidentiality restrictions sought to be imposed did not place external lawyers under any more onerous obligations than those imposed already in their equitable and professional duties and obligations, it was unnecessary to require those external lawyers to provide signed undertakings (see [21] and [37(2)]).
In addition, the Court held that there was no justification for requiring external lawyers to provide an undertaking not to be involved in future work to which the confidential information might be relevant, in particular because external lawyers are well-versed in the need to partition confidential information obtained in different cases and to restrict their use of such confidential information to the case in which it is disclosed (see [29] and [37(3)]).
Christopher Hall represented Dr Reddy’s