UK: High Court Finds Unfairness in Disclosure of Pharmaceutical Company´s Dawn Raided Documents

Last Updated: 23 January 2004

Article by Richard Best, Ashurst*


In the United Kingdom as in other countries, pharmaceutical companies, among others, have had their premises raided by regulators such as the Serious Fraud Office and competition and fair trade authorities. The investigative powers of such regulators are broad, enabling the seizure of significant amounts of commercially sensitive documentation. Once seized, there is the prospect that it may be disclosed to other regulators who may, in turn, use it for their own regulatory or civil actions. Questions arise as to the scope of procedural fairness required when such disclosure is proposed. In the recent case of R v Director of the Serious Fraud Office & Secretary of State for Health [2003] EWHC 3002 (Admin) (1), decided on 17 December 2003, the English High Court held that procedural fairness required the Serious Fraud Office ("SFO") to notify Kent Pharmaceuticals ("KP") of proposed disclosures of seized documents to the Department of Health ("DOH") and give KP sufficient time to make representations on the proposed disclosures. The Court also held that after-the-event notice of disclosure was required where the SFO had not notified KP before disclosure took place.

Outline of the Case

The case arose out of an ongoing SFO investigation into suspected fraud regarding the supply of generic drugs to the National Health Service ("NHS"). (2) Following its receipt of information suggesting that various companies had acted unlawfully in concert so as to increase the price of certain generic drugs (Warfarin and penicillin-based antibiotics), the SFO obtained search warrants under the Criminal Justice Act 1987 ("CJA") and raided the premises of, among other companies, KP. The warrants authorised the SFO to search for and take possession of, among other things, correspondence, notes of meetings at which a conspiracy was alleged to have been discussed, audit papers, accounting records, price lists, external market data, emails, board minutes and internal communications. The warrants were executed in April 2002 and a large amount of material was seized.

On 13 January 2003 the SFO wrote to KP's legal advisors (and those representing the other raided companies) stating that the DOH urgently required access to Warfarin related documents. The SFO stated further that it expected to send "this week" to the relevant parties copies of certain Warfarin documents. (Under section 3(5)(a) of the CJA it has a discretion to disclose such documents to any other government department.) Shortly thereafter, the SFO disclosed Warfarin documents to the DOH and on 16 January notified KP's and the other companies' advisors that it had done so. In February the DOH commenced proceedings against KP and other companies claiming relief based on alleged agreements unlawfully to manipulate and increase the price at which Warfarin was supplied to the NHS. In April KP commenced judicial review proceedings against the SFO, during the course of which it learned that, in August 2003, the SFO had disclosed a further tranche of some 6,000 documents to the DOH.

In the High Court KP argued that:

  • certain documents had been unlawfully seized in April 2002;
  • the SFO's exercise of discretion to disclose the documents to the DOH was an unjustified interference with KP's right under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to respect for private life, home and correspondence) and therefore unlawful;
  • the SFO failed to treat KP fairly because fairness required the SFO to give KP an opportunity to make representations on the proposed disclosures and to give sufficient time for this to happen; and
  • the SFO also failed, in respect of the August 2003 disclosure to the DOH, to inform KP of the disclosure, thereby depriving it of the opportunity to take advice and, if appropriate, institute legal proceedings.

The High Court's Findings

The High Court held that the SFO had acted lawfully when conducting its search of KP's premises but had acted unfairly in not giving KP sufficient notice of its disclosures to the DOH and in not informing KP, after the event, of the August 2003 disclosure.

As regards the unfairness in not giving KP sufficient notice of its disclosures to the DOH, the Court's starting point was that it was "axiomatic that the SFO was obliged to treat KP fairly", meaning that in its treatment of KP the SFO was subject to public law requirements of procedural fairness. The issue in this case was the ambit of those requirements. As noted above, KP's position was that fairness required the SFO to give KP the opportunity to make representations on the proposed disclosure and to give sufficient time for this to happen. And in this case, KP pointed out, it could not be said that it was not practicable or desirable to receive and consider KP's representations prior to the decision to disclose: the documents were KP's own documents and there was therefore no security risk in allowing KP to make representations. Moreover, KP was informed prior to the decision, but not in sufficient time to make meaningful representations. The SFO argued that there might be circumstances making it inappropriate to inform the person whose documents were to be disclosed; issues of public interest immunity or the identity of informants could be at stake. The problem the SFO faced, however, was that these problems were not present in this case. The Court said:

"We do not doubt that such difficulties may arise and that in some cases the desirability of informing an interested party so as to permit representations may be overridden by other factors. However, we are not persuaded that there were any such difficulties or factors in the present case in January or August. To that extent, we are satisfied that the SFO did not act fairly." (3)

As regards the August disclosure, the Court said there was, however, no detriment to KP arising from the SFO itself not having informed KP because the DOH had done so in July, a fortnight before the disclosure occurred.

The Question of Remedy

In judicial review proceedings breach of a public law obligation does not always mean that the court will grant a remedy. The court often has a discretion. In this case the Court said in its judgment that it had yet to receive submissions on relief. It did, however, indicate that relief in this sort of case might be exceptional. In responding to the SFO's concern about the risk of satellite litigation if post-disclosure notice were required, the Court said it could see little scope for such litigation. If the SFO were minded to disclose seized material to a public authority, which was a competent recipient under section 3 of the CJA, and the intended purpose fell within the normal functions of that recipient authority, "the circumstances in which a potential complainant would have any legitimate cause for complaint would be exceptional." (4) For this reason, said the Court, KP faced difficulty so far as the granting of relief was concerned. The Court noted that KP had made no representations following its notice in July of the forthcoming August disclosure and "even now KP seem[ed] somewhat coy about any meaningful representations it could have made." For these reasons the Court repeated its "scepticism about whether it would be appropriate to grant KP discretionary relief." (5)

Although not stated in the publicly available judgment, according to a press release on the SFO's website the Court refused to grant relief and also refused both KP and the SFO leave to appeal. The SFO stated it was considering seeking leave to appeal from the Court of Appeal. The current status of that step is unknown; when asked the SFO would not comment.


This case is significant for its recognition of the procedural fairness that companies in the position of KP ought to be afforded when a body like the Serious Fraud Office, for example, proposes to exercise a right to disclose raided documents to another authority – in particular, the opportunity to make representations on the proposed disclosure and sufficient time to do so. Assuming bodies like the SFO adhere to this standard in appropriate cases (and assuming this case is not overturned on appeal) instead of placing their bets on the courts not granting relief in the event of transgression, in some cases one effect of this decision may be at least a delay in the provision of raided documents to other government departments. The judgment does, however, have its limits. Consistent with the age-old statement that the requirements of procedural fairness are not cast in stone, the Court expressly recognised that in some cases the desirability of informing an interested party of a proposed disclosure may be overridden by other factors. Each case needs to be considered on its merits.


* Richard Best is a solicitor at international law firm Ashurst, Frankfurt; Solicitor (England and Wales), Barrister and Solicitor (New Zealand), Registered Foreign Lawyer (Frankfurt, Germany). This article is not intended to be a comprehensive survey of the subject-matter; readers should take legal advice before applying the information contained in the article to specific issues or transactions.

(1) The case is available in full-text on the website of the British and Irish Legal Information Institute:

(2) The companies concerned have publicly and strenuously denied any wrongdoing.

(3) Paragraph 32.

(4) Paragraph 36.

(5) Paragraph 37.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.