|
In English and English-derived legal systems, an Anton Piller order (frequently misspelt ''Anton Pillar order'') is a court order that provides the right to search premises and seize evidence without prior warning. This prevents destruction of relevant evidence, particularly in cases of alleged trademark, copyright or patent infringements. ==Overview== The order is named after the 1975 English case of ''Anton Piller KG v Manufacturing Processes Limited'', although the first reported such order was granted by Templeman J earlier that year.〔''EMI Limited v Pandit'' () 1 All ER 418〕 They are now known as search orders in England and Wales, New Zealand, Australia and India. In ''Anton Piller'', Lord Denning described the nature of the relief: Because such an order does not give the accused party the ability to defend themselves, Anton Piller orders are only issued exceptionally and according to the three-step test set out by Ormrod LJ in ''Anton Piller'': # There is an extremely strong ''prima facie'' case against the respondent, # The damage, potential or actual, must be very serious for the applicant, and # There must be clear evidence that the respondents have in their possession relevant documents or things and that there is a real possibility that they may destroy such material before an ''inter partes'' application can be made.〔(''Anton Piller KG v Manufacturing Processes Limited'' ) () Ch 55: "There are three essential pre-conditions for the making of such an Order, in my judgment. 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."〕 In England, it has been reported that approximately 500 Anton Piller orders were granted per year between 1975 and 1980. During the 1990s, this rate had dropped tenfold. Although the name persists in normal usage, the common law application of this order has been largely superseded by a statutory search order under the Civil Procedure Act 1997. A search order under this act "does not affect any right of a person to refuse to do anything on the ground that to do so might tend to expose him or his spouse to proceedings for an offence or for the recovery of a penalty".〔s. 7(7), 〕 Hugh Laddie is generally credited with the "invention" of the Anton Piller order.〔See (Guardian ); (Telegraph ); (UCL News ) ("he is credited with having invented the 'Anton Piller' (search and seizure) order and was described by Lord Denning as the 'enterprising' Mr Laddie."); (Rouse ) ("He is widely credited as being the founding father of the Anton Piller Order."); (Howard Knopf ) ("It was he as a young barrister at the age of 29 who developed the remedy known as the 'Anton Piller order' and won the landmark appellate ruling in a judgment written by Lord Denning confirming its historic place in legal history.").〕 An obituary in ''The Daily Telegraph'' stated that he later described the Anton Piller order "as a Frankenstein's monster that went far beyond his original design brief." In some jurisdictions (for example, Hong Kong and South Africa) where there is no statutory search order, the Anton Piller order is still often used. In South Africa, for example, in ''Mathias International Ltd v Baillache'', the applicants instituted motion proceedings in which they claimed (i) an Anton Piller order and (ii) interdictory relief directed at prohibiting unlawful competition by the first and second respondents using the applicants' 'confidential information'. In ''Lock International plc v Beswick'',〔''Lock International plc v Beswick'', (1989) 1 WLR 1268〕 Anton Piller orders were mentioned as "inherently oppressive". 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Anton Piller order」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|