Australian Federal Court codifies Mareva (‘Freezing’) and Anton Piller (‘Search’) Orders
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.
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)  2 Lloyd’s Rep 509) is
intended to freeze the assets of the party subject to the Order with the aim
frustration or abuse of the process of the Court (ie,
so that they don’t move the assets out of the jurisdiction of the
an Anton Piller
Order (from Anton Piller KG v Manufacturing
Processes Ltd  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
For a leading High Court case on MarevaOrders – Cardile v LED Builders Pty Limited  HCA 18 (6 May
For a recent Full Federal Court decision concerning
Orders — see: Maniotis v J H
Lever & Co Pty Ltd ACN 008 220 666  FCAFC 7 (17 February 2006)