Glaxo Group Ltd.t/a Allen & Hanburys v Rowex Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr Justice Max Barrett
• Judgment Date: 19 November 2018
• Neutral Citation: [2018] IEHC 648
• Docket Number: 2015 No. 2537 P
• Court: High Court
• Date: 19 November 2018

Between:

Glaxo Group Limited

and

Glaxo Smithkline (Ireland) Limited t/a Allen & Hanburys

Plaintiffs

– and –

Rowex Limited

Defendant

[2018] IEHC 648

2015 No. 2537 P

THE HIGH COURT

Joinder application – Amended statement of claim – Passing off – Plaintiffs seeking to join six additional defendants to the proceedings – Whether the plaintiffs had a stateable case as to joint tortfeasorship against the defendant and proposed defendants

Facts: The plaintiffs, Glaxo Group Ltd and Glaxo Smithkline (Ireland) Ltd, sought pursuant to O.15, rr. 4 &/or 13 &/or 14 of the Rules of the Superior Courts 1986 to join six additional defendants to the proceedings, and sought pursuant to O.28, r.1 of the Rules for leave to deliver an amended statement of claim. It appeared to the plaintiffs from information gleaned in parallel proceedings in England that the existing and proposed additional defendants had between them committed the tort of passing off.

Held by the High Court (Barrett J) that: (1) it was clear from the evidence that the plaintiffs had a stateable case as to joint tortfeasorship against the defendant, Rowex Ltd, and proposed defendants; (2) it was not the case that the plaintiffs sought to make a limited case against Rowex and a more expansive case regarding the proposed defendants; (3) if the court refused the joinder the plaintiffs could commence separate proceedings against the proposed defendants but for the court to allow matters so to proceed would risk conflicting judgments (and hence real injustice); (4) in the defences put in in the parallel English proceedings, it was accepted by the Sandoz entities that if Sandoz UK is guilty of passing off it is jointly liable with the other defendants; (5) as to the notion that Rowex had been prejudiced because already in the proceedings it had been embroiled in a discovery application in circumstances where it was claimed that the proposed additional defendants could have been joined earlier, (i) such discovery as had been sought was discovery that there was an entitlement to seek, (ii) the plaintiffs had confirmed that if joinder was ordered they would not seek any further discovery from Rowex other than as was ruled by the court in May 2016 (apart from some 'tightening up' of the order to issue), so (iii) if Rowex was not going to be put to further cost it could not complain of wasted costs; (6) there was no evidence of prejudicial consequences such as delay in getting the matter to trial; (7) if there were arguments to be made as regards the discovery that may be sought/ordered post-joinder, those arguments fell properly to be made in the course of the relevant discovery application.

Barrett J held that he would grant an order of joinder in respect of the proposed six additional defendants to the proceedings and also leave to deliver the proposed amended statement of claim.

Application granted.

JUDGMENT of Mr Justice Max Barrett delivered on 19th November, 2018.

1 The background to the within proceedings is detailed in Glaxo Group Ltd v. Rowex Ltd (Unreported, 19th May, 2015, High Court,...