Microsoft Corp v Goodview Electronics Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 754

Microsoft Corp v Goodview Electronics Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 754

The Court refused to grant the Anton Piller order because the circumstances were not exceptional: the applicants failed to establish there was a real risk the respondents would destroy, hide, or remove material evidence before an inter partes application could be heard. Furthermore, given the late stage of the application (long after service and defence filed), respondents’ representation, and the inadequacy of evidence regarding serious actual or potential damage, the discretion to grant an extraordinary order was not exercised.

Parties
First Applicant: Microsoft Corporation; Second Applicant: Microsoft Pty Limited; First Respondent: Goodview Electronics Pty Limited; Second Respondent: Keng Liu
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 June 1999
Procedural Posture
Application (originating Proceeding) / Ex Parte Application for Anton Piller Order, Reasons for Refusal of Application
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Anton Piller Order, Copyright Infringement, Trademark, Injunctive Relief, Evidence Preservation
Intellectual Property Law Civil Procedure Anton Piller Order Copyright Infringement Trademark Injunctive Relief Evidence Preservation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Microsoft Corporation

First Applicant

Microsoft Pty Limited

Second Applicant

Goodview Electronics Pty Limited

First Respondent

Keng Liu

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application (originating Proceeding) / Ex Parte Application for Anton Piller Order, Reasons for Refusal of Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the circumstances justified the grant of an Anton Piller order
  2. 2 Whether there was a real risk evidence would be destroyed, hidden or removed from the jurisdiction before inter partes hearing
  3. 3 Whether an independent solicitor should be appointed to supervise execution of an Anton Piller order

Ratio Decidendi

The Court refused to grant the Anton Piller order because the circumstances were not exceptional: the applicants failed to establish there was a real risk the respondents would destroy, hide, or remove material evidence before an inter partes application could be heard. Furthermore, given the late stage of the application (long after service and defence filed), respondents’ representation, and the inadequacy of evidence regarding serious actual or potential damage, the discretion to grant an extraordinary order was not exercised.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The application for an Anton Piller order be dismissed