Due to the unusual nature of Anton Piller orders, they are only granted in a strong case where the circumstances
are exceptional.
The Court agreed in this case that the order was too widely framed. It was pointed out that the order should go
no further than strictly necessary for the preservation of the evidence sought to be preserved. In attempting to
establish a test for deciding whether to discharge a rule where the order was too widely framed, the Court set out
the following guidelines. The overall onus of establishing entitlement to the relief claimed lies with the applicant. The
wide framing of an order need not be wilful or mala fide to result in the rule being discharged. An applicant bears the
onus of satisfying the court that there was justification for the attachment of the documents reflected in the court
order. Where the order is too wide, an applicant has to establish cogent reasons as to why the order should not be
discharged. The court has a discretion to discharge such an order.
According to the Court, the order relating to the documents pertaining to the Anton Piller relief was seriously
flawed. It was not accepted that copies of all Respondents' computer records were required for the trial. The Court
was therefore unable to exercise its discretion in Applicants' favour. The application was dismissed.
Notes
For Civil Procedure see LAWSA Reissue (Vol 3(1), paras 1 441)
Cases referred to in judgment
("C" means confirmed; "D" means distinguished; "F" means followed and "R" means reversed. H N refers to
corresponding headnote number.)
A Becker and Co (Pty) Ltd v Becker and others 1981 (3) SA 406 (A)
Cerebos Food Corp v Diverse Foods SA 1984 (4) SA 149 (T)
Dabelstein and others v Hildebrandt and others [1996] 2 All SA 17 (C); 1996 (3) SA 42 (C)
Hall and another v Heyns and others 1991 (1) SA 381 (C)
Pohlman & others v Van Schalkwyk & others [2000] 4 All SA 265 (E); 2001 (1) SA 690 (E)
R v Blom 1939 AD 188
Roamer Watch Co SA Ltd and another v African Textile Distributors 1980 (2) SA 254 (W)
S v Hammer and others 1994 (2) SACR 496 (C)
Schlesinger v Schlesinger 1979 (4) SA 342 (W)
Shoba v OC, Temporary Police Camp, Wagendrift Dam 1995 (4) SA 1 (A)
Sun World International Inc v Unifruco Ltd 1998 (3) SA 151 (C)
Telefund Raisers CC v Isaacs and others 1998 (1) SA 521 (C)
Universal City Studios Inc v Network Video (Pty) Ltd 1986 (2) SA 734 (A)
Page 197 of [2001] 3 All SA 194 (C)
Judgment
PINCUS AJ
[1]
The first and second applicants chose to leap "into the dangerous world", to quote William Blake, the famous
English poet, that is, "the dangerous world" of Anton Piller. I say "dangerous" because Anton Piller is an extra
ordinary procedure, draconian in nature and an intrusion of one's privacy. Accordingly, compliance with the
requisites must, in my view, be strictly observed. In Pohlman & others v Van Schalkwyk & others1
2001 (1) SA 690 (E) at 698DE, Froneman J pointed out that applicants must be aware that the grant of this
remedy "carries its own attendant dangers, the nature of which cannot be minimised . . .". (The underlining has
been added.) More of this later.
[2]
The applicants' notice of motion revealed that they sought both Anton Piller relief and interdictory relief. In
truth, it was not only Anton Piller and interdictory relief that was sought, but in addition, interim attachment
relief.
[3]
On 28 February 2001, the interim attachment relief and the Anton Piller relief were dealt with by my brother,
Mjoli AJ, on an ex parte basis.
[4]
4.1
The listed items which were to be taken into the possession of the Sheriff, pursuant to the order of court,
were as follows:
"Schedule of Listed Items
Part A
All of Applicant's property, documents, information, computer programmes and templates, including all copies in
any form and backups of such documents, information, programmes or templates and in particular First
Applicant's: