An Anton Piller injunction Anton Piller KG v Manufacturing Processes Ltd and Others [1976]

Ch. 55 also known as an “order for the delivery up of goods” or a “search order,” is a type of civil
court order that allows the plaintiff to search the defendant's premises and seize evidence without
prior warning or notice to the defendant.
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.
In general, the Mareva is used to ensure that assets that should be available to satisfy a potential
judgment are not taken away. The Anton Piller is a civil search warrant utilized to prevent a party
from destroying evidence and covering his traces.

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.
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.

Perayu (Anton Piller KG) ialah pengeluar penukar frekuensi Jerman untuk komputer. Responden
(Manufacturing Processes Ltd) dan dua pengarah mereka merupakan ejen perayu di United Kingdom.
Ejen ini adalah peniaga yang mendapat mesin daripada perayu dan menjualnya kepada pelanggan di
England. Perayu telah memberikan banyak maklumat sulit kepada responden mengenai mesin itu,
termasuk manual yang menunjukkan cara ia berfungsi dan melukis yang menjadi subjek hak cipta.

Perayu mendakwa bahawa responden berada dalam komunikasi rahsia dengan pengeluar Jerman lain
bernama Ferrostaal dan Lechmotoren. Responden memberi mereka maklumat sulit mengenai unit
kuasa perayu dan butiran penukar baharu supaya mereka boleh mengeluarkan unit kuasa seperti
perayu. Perayu telah mengetahui komunikasi ini melalui dua "pembelot" yang merupakan pengurus
komersial dan pengurus jualan syarikat responden. Perbalahan mereka disokong oleh dokumen yang
berasal dari kedua-dua Ferrostaal dan Lechmotoren. Mereka menunjukkan bahawa responden sentiasa
berkomunikasi dengan mereka dan mereka menghantar lukisan dan mengatur pemeriksaan mesin
perayu untuk mengeluarkan mesin prototaip yang disalin daripada perayu.
Perayu bimbang pendedahan maklumat sulit ini akan membawa kerosakan serius kepada mereka
kerana mereka akan menghasilkan penukar frekuensi baharu yang dikenali sebagai "Blok Senyap".
Mereka bimbang bahawa responden yang bekerja bersama-sama dengan pengeluar Jerman lain akan
menyalin "Blok Senyap" mereka dan merosakkan pasaran.

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.
(a) memeriksa semua dokumen atau artikel yang berhubungan dengan reka bentuk, pembuatan,
penjualan atau pembekalan salinan peralatan plaintif ... (b) mengeluarkan ke dalam jagaan peguam
cara plaintif (i) semua dokumen asal yang berhubungan dengan pembuatan, operasi atau
penyelenggaraan peralatan plaintif yang ... telah dibekalkan oleh plaintif kepada defendan (ii) semua
dokumen atau artikel yang berkaitan dengan reka bentuk, pembuatan, penjualan atau pembekalan
salinan peralatan plaintif. ...."