Teva Pharmaceuticals Limited awarded security for its costs as defendant in abuse of dominance proceedings by Chemistree

04 Nov 2011

Briggs J ordered that Chemistree must pay £750,000 to Teva by way of security in a series of staggered payments.  The Judge held that, in defending itself against Chemistree’s claims, Teva was entitled to incur legal costs that reflected “the best legal representation that it could secure.”  The Judge was critical of the limited disclosure made by Chemistree and, in particular, its failure to provide audited accounts.  He found that Teva had shown, relying on evidence from an expert accountant, that there was reason to believe that Chemistree would be unable to pay Teva’s costs if Teva was successful at the end of the trial.  The Court was also unpersuaded by Chemistree’s argument, on the evidence put before it,  that the claim would be “stifled” if it were ordered to pay any more than £350,000.  It was therefore just to make the order for security for costs.  The Judge also rejected Chemistree’s argument that the Court should apply a different test in exercising its discretion to award security because their claim concerned EU law rights or was, in Chemistree’s submission, a test case.

Ronit Kreisberger acted for Teva Pharmaceuticals Limited.