This is the case which established the Anton Piller order.
Facts of the Case
The appellant (Anton Piller KG) is a German Manufacturers of frequency converters for computers. The respondents (Manufacturing Processes Ltd) and their two directors were the appellant’s agent in United Kingdom. These agents are dealers who get the machines from the appellant and sell them to customers in England. Appellant had supplied he respondent with much confidential information about the machines, including a manual showing how they work and drawings which are the subject of copyright.
The appellant claimed that the respondents were in secret communication with other German manufacturers called Ferrostaal and Lechmotoren. Respondents were giving them confidential information about the appellant’s power unit and details of a new converter so that they can manufacture power units like the appellant. Appellant had found out these communications through two “defectors” who are a commercial manager and a sales managers of respondent company. Their contentions were supported by documents originated from both Ferrostaal and Lechmotoren. They showed that respondent was in regular communication with them and they were sending them drawings and arranging for inspection of appellant’s machine to manufacture a prototype machine copied from appellant.
Appellant was worried that this disclose of confidential information would bring serious damage to them because they were about to produce a fine new frequency converter called the “Silent Block”. They feared that the respondent working together with other German manufacturer would copy their “Silent Block” and ruined the market.
Appellant’s solicitor prepared a draft writ of summon with an affidavit applied ex parte to the Court for an interim injunction to restrain infringement and also an order that permit them to enter respondent’s premises to inspect the respondent’s documents and remove them or copies them. They worried that if notice was given to the respondents, they will destroy the documents or send them elsewhere. The Court granted an interim order but refused to order inspection or removal of the documents. The learned judge realised that respondents might suppress evidence but he thought that it was a risk which must be accepted in civil matters. Thus, the appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal.
Issue of the Case
Whether the order for inspection and removal of documents should be granted to the appellant?
Judgement of the Case
The Court have recognised that it is a severe form of order sought by the appellant. The power to grant this order is found under the inherent jurisdiction of the Court. The Court held that this kind of order have some resemblance to a search warrant, where the plaintiff and his solicitors are authorised to enter the defendant’s premise to inspect papers, provided the defendant gives permission. An important point is that the Court orders the defendant to allow plaintiff to enter their premise. Judges have been making these order on ex parte applications and without prior notice to the defendant.
It was established in Entick v. Carrington (1765) 2 Wils. KB 275 that no Court has any power to issue a search warrant to enter a man’s house just to see if there are any papers or documents which are of an incriminating nature. It does not authorise the plaintiff’s solicitor or anyone else to enter the defendant’s premise against their will. It only authorises entry and inspection by the permission of the defendants. This order brings pressure to the defendants to give permission because the result of not giving permission would mean that there are guilty of contempt of Court. This may seem to be a search warrant in disguise but it was held to be legitimate 150 years ago in United Company of Merchants of England, Trading to the East Indies v. Kynaston (1821) 3 Bli. (O.S.) 153.
The essential conditions for making such order are as follows. First, there must be an extremely strong prima facie case. Secondly, the damage, potential or actual, must be very serious for the applicant. Thirdly, there must be clear evidence that the defendants have in their possession incriminating documents or things, and that there is a real possibility that they may destroy such material before any application inter partes can be made. The Court also held that such order is made only when there is no alternative way of ensuring that justice is done to the applicant.
In the enforcement of this order, plaintiff must act with caution. Plaintiff should be attended by their solicitor and they should give the defendants an opportunity to consult their own solicitor. If defendants wish to apply to discharge the order as having been improperly obtained, they must be allowed to do so. If defendants refuse to allow plaintiff to enter their premise, plaintiff must accept the refusal and inform the Court afterwards. This order is effective because if the defendants refuse to allow inspection, they put themselves at risk for contempt of Court and also adverse inferences might be drawn against them.
On the evidence in this case, the Court held that there was sufficient justification to make an order with an undertaking in damages supported by a bond for $10,000. The Court granted an interim injunction to restraint the infringement of copyright and breach of confidential information and order that the defendants do permit one or two of the plaintiffs and one or two of their solicitors to enter the defendant’s premise for the purpose of inspecting documents, files or things and removing those which belong to the plaintiffs. thus, this appeal was allowed.
Principle of the Case
The essential conditions before an Anton Piller order can be made are:
There must be an extremely strong prima facie case.
The damage, potential or actual, must be very serious for the applicant.
There must be clear evidence that the defendants have in their possession incriminating documents or things, and that there is a real possibility that they may destroy such material before any application inter partes can be made.
The full judgment can be found at the link here.
Comments