Anton Pillar Order Flashcards
Columbia Pictures v Robinson (purpose)
the APO is used to ‘prevent D warned of impending litigation from destroying evidence that may assist P
Ladey and Dockrey
the APO is “an exceptional device intended to avoid injustice which has become almost a routine method of creating it”
Columbia Pictures (contempt of court)
Scott J agreed with the view that where D refuses to allow access to the court and subsequently successfully applies to have the APO discharged, D would nevertheless be guilty of contempt of court
Lord Donaldson
nuclear weapon of the law
Anton Pillar KG v Manufacturing Processes Ltd, Ormrod LJ
extremely strong prima facie case; damage, potential or actual, must be very serious; clear evidence that D has incriminating documents and that there is a real possibility that they may destroy them
Microsoft Corp
an applicant and his solicitor must err on the side of excessive disclosure. It is for the court to decide on which side fo the relevance line information lies.
O Ltd v Z
if D wishes to invoke his privilege against self-incrimination, he must do so before the incriminating evidence is found
O Ltd v Z (facts)
pornographic images of children were found on D’s computer during the execution of an APO, held D could not invoke the privilege after the evidence had been found
Columbia Pictures Industries v Robinson (criticism)
Scott J noted that the court has allowed the balance to swing much too far in favour of P and that APO have been too readily granted and with insufficient safeguards for D
Zuckerman
notes there is a “huge potential for prejudice” as D are treated as though they have already been tried and found guilty and that the whole system is in need of great reform
Yousif v Salama
draconian power which should only be used in very exceptional cases
