Australian Federal Court codifies Mareva (‘Freezing’) and Anton Piller (‘Search’) Orders

Copyright Friday, May 5, 2006 Duncan Bucknell Company

The Australian Federal Court has just issued new Federal Court Rules which codify the procedure for obtaining Marevaand Anton Piller orders. Click here for a copy of the new Federal Court Rules.

Take home

These Orders may be obtained ex parte, impose draconian requirements on the Defendant and are not handed down lightly by the Courts:

a MarevaOrder (from Mareva Compania Naviera SA v International Bulkcarriers SA (The Mareva) [1975] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 509) is intended to freeze the assets of the party subject to the Order with the aim of preventing frustration or abuse of the process of the Court (ie, so that they don’t move the assets out of the jurisdiction of the Court);

an Anton Piller Order (from Anton Piller KG v Manufacturing Processes Ltd [1976] Ch 55) is basically a civil search warrant with a number of important restrictions on the searching party.

This is a great development for litigants in Australia, as it creates more certainty and simplifies the process of obtaining these Orders which are both very prevalent in Intellectual Property litigation.

The Chief Justice has issued Practice Note No 23 and Practice Note No 24 to complement the new Orders (25A and 25B).

Background

For those who are interested, the Court has power to make such orders (and ancillary orders), under s 23 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth).

For a leading High Court case on MarevaOrders - Cardile v LED Builders Pty Limited [1999] HCA 18 (6 May 1999)

For a recent Full Federal Court decision concerning

Anton Piller

Orders — see: Maniotis v J H Lever & Co Pty Ltd ACN 008 220 666 [2006] FCAFC 7 (17 February 2006)