Mareva Injunctions & Anton Piller Orders

Front 1

Dowley v O'Brien

Back 1

Mareva Injunctions will not prevent a bank from exercising a bona fide right of set off - does not move plaintiff to the front of the queue of creditora

Front 2

Serge Caudron v Air Zaire

Back 2

Older principle: not a cause of action - there must be a primary legal action in Ireland

Front 3

Jurisdiction of Courts and Enforcement of Judgments (European Communities) Act 1998 S.13(1)

Back 3

Legislation providing for the possibility of obtaining a Mareva injunction where the primary legal action is in another contracting country

Front 4

Fleming v Ranks (Ireland) Ltd

Back 4

Injunction to prevent disposal of flour within Ireland refused because no evidence of wrongful intention by defendant company - plaintiff must have a "good arguable case"

Front 5

O'Mahony v Horgan

Back 5

SC approved requirements set out in Third Chandris Shipping Corpn v Unimarine SA - money received on insurance policy not subject to Mareva injunction because no intention

Front 6

Countyglen v Carway

Back 6

Murphy J equated "good arguable case" with Campus Oil standard

Front 7

Bambrick v Cobley

Back 7

Clarke J held that consequences of non-disclosure were not automatic - depends on:

i) materiality

ii) culpability

iii) overall circumstances

Although non-disclosure was not deliberate, the plaintiff as a solicitor was culpable and the injunction was discharged

Inferences based on removal of assets weigh less strongly where second country is a convention country

Front 8

Republic of Haiti v Duvalier

Back 8

Order against extra-territorial assets of dictator was enforceable but depended on co-operation of foreign courts

Front 9

Collier v Gharion

Back 9

With regard to the requirement that grounds must be given for the fear that assets will be wrongfully removed or dissipated, Barrington J confirmed that principle that individuals are ordinarily not entitled to orders preventing another person from dealing with their own assets

Front 10

Tracey v Bowen

Back 10

Defendant overheard telling 3rd party he planned to move to Spain - material circumstance but possession of apartment in Ireland rebutted this

Front 11

Moloney v Laurib Investments Ltd

Back 11

Court decided that the parents could not give a worthwhile undertaking as to damages in the context of the scale of the loss that would be suffered by the company if it was stopped from selling the asset

Front 12

Sociedade Nacionale v Lundqvust

Back 12

An ancillary aspect of a Mareva injunctions requiring the defendant to disclose location and value of assets was held to infringe the right against self-incrimination because it could give rise to a criminal conviction

Front 13

Anton Piller KG v Manufacturing Processes Ltd

Back 13

Defendant's alleged to be selling confidential information to plaintiff's rivals - test for Anton Piller Order set out

Front 14

Microsoft v Brightpoint Ireland Ltd

Back 14

Defendant company alleged not to have licences to products. Smyth J noted that English legislative safeguards do not apply in Ireland.

Front 15

Columbia Picture Industries Inc v Robinson

Back 15

View of English courts that Anton Piller Orders were too readily granted and allowed balance to swing too much in favour of plaintiffs. Defendant had gone out of business and unrelated material had been confiscated as a result of the order.

Front 16

Civil Procedure Rules, Part 25

Back 16

English statutory requirements designed to control Anton Piller orders

Front 17

Ranks Film Distribution Ltd v Video Centre Ltd

Back 17

Counsel for the defendants "reveled in the wickedness" of defendants in order to invoke the privilege against self incrimination

Front 18

S.72 Supreme Court Act 1981

Back 18

Removal in England of the privilege against self-incrimination in relation to intellectual property claims

Front 19

IBM United Kingdom Ltd v Prima Data International Ltd

Back 19

Defendant complied with Anton Piller Order after privilege against self incrimination was explained and subsequently could not rely on it

Front 20

O Ltd v Z

Back 20

Lindsay J suggested that awareness of privilege was not a necessary pre-condition to waiver

Front 21

Bayer AG v Winter

Back 21

Case establishing Bayer Order - must intend to leave country in order to frustrate administration of justice

Front 22

O'Neill v O'Keeffe

Back 22

Bayer Order granted restraining the defendant from leaving the jurisdiction without the permission of the court