Universal City Studios Inc and Another v Network Video (Pty) Ltd. (3/86) [1986] ZASCA 3; [1986] 2 All SA 192 (A); 1986 (2) SA 734 (27 February 1986)

Universal City Studios Inc and Another v Network Video (Pty) Ltd. (3/86) [1986] ZASCA 3; [1986] 2 All SA 192 (A); 1986 (2) SA 734 (27 February 1986)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that while the court has inherent powers to grant orders designed to preserve evidence pendente lite, such powers do not extend to authorizing a search for and attachment of evidence to found a cause of action, as sought in paragraphs 1.2 and 1.5 of the original order. The only competent part of the Anton Piller order was paragraph 1.1, relating to the interim attachment of infringing copies of the film THE BIG FIX, in which the first appellant held registered copyright. The court emphasized that ex parte Anton Piller orders may be justified where there is a real risk of evidence being lost, but such orders must be hedged with safeguards and should not be...

Citation
[1986] ZASCA 3
Parties
Appellant: Universal City Studios, Inc.; Appellant: Paramount Pictures Corporation; Appellant: Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc.; Appellant: Warner Bros. Inc.; Appellant: Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corporation; Appellant: MGM/UA Entertainment Co.; Appellant: United Artists Corporation; Appellant: Walt Disney Productions; Appellant: Orion Pictures Corporation; Appellant: Embassy Pictures; Respondent: Network Video (Proprietary) Limited
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 February 1986
Case Number
3/86
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Full Court Judgment, Following Initial Ex Parte Anton Piller Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs. No formal amendment of the order of the Court a quo. Respondent entitled to costs of appeal and application for leave to appeal.
Judges
CORBETT, KOTZÉ, MILLER, BOTHA, GALGUT
Legal Topics
Copyright Infringement, Anton Piller Orders, Preservation of Evidence, Ex Parte Applications, Unlawful Competition
Intellectual Property Civil Procedure Copyright Infringement Anton Piller Orders Preservation of Evidence Ex Parte Applications Unlawful Competition

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 4 Authorities cited 27 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Universal City Studios, Inc.

Appellant

Paramount Pictures Corporation

Appellant

Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc.

Appellant

Warner Bros. Inc.

Appellant

Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corporation

Appellant

MGM/UA Entertainment Co.

Appellant

United Artists Corporation

Appellant

Walt Disney Productions

Appellant

Orion Pictures Corporation

Appellant

Embassy Pictures

Appellant

Network Video (Proprietary) Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Full Court Judgment, Following Initial Ex Parte Anton Piller Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court has the power to grant Anton Piller-type orders ex parte and without notice to the respondent.
  2. 2 Whether the order granted by LATEGAN J, particularly paragraphs 1.2 and 1.5, was competent under South African law.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent's rights were unduly infringed by the ex parte procedure.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that while the court has inherent powers to grant orders designed to preserve evidence pendente lite, such powers do not extend to authorizing a search for and attachment of evidence to found a cause of action, as sought in paragraphs 1.2 and 1.5 of the original order. The only competent part of the Anton Piller order was paragraph 1.1, relating to the interim attachment of infringing copies of the film THE BIG FIX, in which the first appellant held registered copyright. The court emphasized that ex parte Anton Piller orders may be justified where there is a real risk of evidence being lost, but such orders must be hedged with safeguards and should not be...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs. No formal amendment of the order of the Court a quo. Respondent entitled to costs of appeal and application for leave to appeal.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.
  • No order is made regarding the costs of the application to LATEGAN J.