Discharge of Anton Piller order

In Audio Vehicle Systems v Whitfield and Another 2007 (1) SA 434 ( C) the applicant had obtained an Anton Piller order against the respondents on an urgent and ex parte basis. On the return day of the rule nisi the respondents sought the discharge of the order and restoration of the status quo ante. Bozalek J set aside and discharged the whole of the original order, restored the status quo ante and ordered the applicant to pay costs on a scale as between attorney and own client. The court gave, among others, the following reasons:

• An Anton Piller order couched in the form of a rule nisi would be discharged on the return day where the applicant failed to make full and fair disclosure to the court of all material facts at the time of the granting of the rule.

• A rule nisi would be discharged where it was more onerous or far-reaching than was necessary to protect the interests of the applicant.

• The order granted ought not to be so wide as to give the applicant access to documents to which he was not shown to be entitled, nor should it go further than was necessary for the preservation of the critical evidence.

• The presence of the director of the applicant during – and his active participation in – the execution of the order, despite the fact that his presence was not authorised by the order, was an irregularity.

• Given the terms of the order and the manner in which it was executed, the first respondent’s right to privacy, which included the right not to have his home and property searched or to have his possessions seized, had undeniably been breached. Furthermore, his right to dignity had arguably also been violated.

(Source: www.derebus.org.za)