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)