header-logo header-logo

01 June 2018 / Dr Chris Pamplin
Issue: 7795 / Categories: Features , Expert Witness , Profession
printer mail-detail

Confidentiality too far?

nlj_7795_pamplin

Chris Pamplin considers the question of expert confidentiality & trade secrets

  • An illustration of the heavy weight of confidentiality that experts often carry, particularly in cases involving subject matter of a commercially sensitive nature.

When litigation involves sensitive commercial information it poses particular problems with expert confidentiality. On occasion, the court and parties might consider that the expert’s standard obligations and duties are insufficient.

Such a situation may arise in cases dealing with experimental processes and patents, particularly the experiments carried out in the ‘work-up’ to the final outcome.

In Mayne Pharma Limited & Another v Debiopharm SA & Another [2006] EWHC 164 (Pat), the claimants sought to invalidate four patents relating to a drug used in the treatment of colorectal cancer. The claimants alleged that one of the patents (which defined a method of preparing the compound under conditions within a specified pH range) was anticipated by a piece of prior art. The claimants filed a notice of the prior art and a notice of experiments they themselves had carried

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll