With a career that has already spanned over 21 years, he has experience in Anton Piller Orders
(evidence preservation), Norwich Orders (third party disclosure of records), and Mareva Injunctions (freezing assets); and has acted as trial counsel in numerous commercial litigation and corporate fraud claims.
It came about through a combination of carelessness, overzealousness, failure to focus on the limited purpose of preserving relevant evidence and by an inability to appreciate the potential dangers of Anton Piller orders.
Experience has shown that despite their draconian nature, there is a proper role for Anton Piller orders to ensure that unscrupulous defendants are not able to circumvent the court's processes by, on being forewarned, making relevant evidence disappear.
The Court then spells out in detail a series of protective procedures which the lower courts ought to consider in all proper Anton Piller orders.
Early on, the Plaintiffs obtained an Anton Piller order ex parte to enter Defendants' premises to search, inspect, remove, detain and retain certain documents.
In the Court's view, it must resolve the conflict "on the basis that no one has the right to be represented by counsel who has had access to relevant solicitor-client confidences in circumstances where such access ought to have been anticipated and, without great difficulty, avoided and where such counsel has failed to rebut the presumption of a resulting risk of prejudice to the party against whom the Anton Piller order was made.
One of the lower courts correctly found that lawyers who undertake searches under the authority of an Anton Piller order and thereby get hold of relevant confidential information attributable to solicitor-client relationships, bear the burden of showing that there is no real risk that someone will exploit such confidences to Defendant's prejudice.
There are four essential conditions for the making of an Anton Piller order.
Both the strength and the weakness of an Anton Piller order is that it is made ex parte and [is] interlocutory: there is thus no cross-examination on the supporting affidavits.
The absence of specific terms in the Anton Piller order does not relieve the searching solicitors from the consequences of gaining inappropriate access.