Nautech -v- CSS Ltd and Others [2013] JRC 154 (31 July 2013)

Nautech -v- CSS Ltd and Others [2013] JRC 154 (31 July 2013)

The Anton Piller order was discharged as it was wrongly obtained without proper disclosure, but since defendants admitted wrongdoing and some interim relief was appropriate, no order as to costs was made for the discharge application. Plaintiff was denied costs of the ex parte application due to failure to make full and frank disclosure.

Citation
[2013] JRC 154
Parties
Plaintiff: Plaintiff; Defendant: First Defendant; Defendant: Second Defendant; Defendant: Third Defendant; Defendant: Fourth Defendant; Defendant: Fifth Defendant; Party Cited: First Party Cited; Party Cited: Second Party Cited
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
31 July 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil / Post Interlocutory Application for Discharge of Anton Piller Order and Related Costs Orders
Outcome
Anton Piller order discharged; no order as to costs for discharge application; plaintiff denied costs of ex parte application; second party cited discharged with no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
Anton Piller Orders, Ex Parte Relief, Costs, Springboard Injunctions, Interim Injunctions
Civil Procedure Intellectual Property Anton Piller Orders Ex Parte Relief Costs Springboard Injunctions Interim Injunctions

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiff

Plaintiff

First Defendant

Defendant

Second Defendant

Defendant

Third Defendant

Defendant

Fourth Defendant

Defendant

Fifth Defendant

Defendant

First Party Cited

Party Cited

Second Party Cited

Party Cited

Procedural Posture

Civil / Post Interlocutory Application for Discharge of Anton Piller Order and Related Costs Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Anton Piller order should be discharged
  2. 2 Whether leave to appeal and a stay pending appeal should be granted
  3. 3 Whether an abridgment of time for a springboard injunction should be allowed

Ratio Decidendi

The Anton Piller order was discharged as it was wrongly obtained without proper disclosure, but since defendants admitted wrongdoing and some interim relief was appropriate, no order as to costs was made for the discharge application. Plaintiff was denied costs of the ex parte application due to failure to make full and frank disclosure.

Court Disposition

Anton Piller order discharged; no order as to costs for discharge application; plaintiff denied costs of ex parte application; second party cited discharged with no order as to costs.

Orders

  • Discharge of Anton Piller order
  • No order as to costs for discharge application