Anton Piller Order - Overview

Overview

The order is named after the English case of Anton Piller KG v Manufacturing Processes Limited Ch 55 in 1976, although the first reported such order was granted by Templeman J in EMI Limited v Pandit 1 All ER 418 in 1975. They are now known as search orders in England, Wales, New Zealand, and Western Australia.

Because such an order is essentially unfair to the accused party, Anton Piller orders are only issued exceptionally and according to the three-step test set out by Ormrod LJ in the Anton Piller case:

1. There is an extremely strong prima facie case against the respondent,
2. The damage, potential or actual, must be very serious for the applicant, and
3. 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.

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 Although the name persists in normal usage, the common law application of this order has been largely superseded by a statutory search order under the Civil Procedure Act 1997.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".

Hugh Laddie is generally credited with the "invention" of the Anton Piller order. 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 and Another v Baillache and Others (23347/09) ZAWCHC 68 (8 March 2010), 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 (1989) 1 WLR 1268, Anton Piller orders were mentioned as "inherently oppressive".