|
''Memory Institute SA CC t/a SA Memory Institute v Hansen and Others''〔2004 (2) SA 630 (SCA).〕〔Case No. 253/2002.〕 is an important case in South African law, heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal. The judges were Harms JA, Schutz JA, Cameron JA, Conradie JA and Heher JA, who heard the case on May 8, 2003, handing down judgment on May 16, 2003. PJ Heymans appeared for the appellant; MH Wessels SC for the respondents. The case revolved around the requirements for ''Anton Piller'' orders. Such orders, the court found, are for preservation of evidence; they are not a substitute for possessory or proprietary claims. They require built-in protection measures such as the appointment of an independent attorney to supervise their execution. The applicant and his own attorney may not form part of search party. The goods seized are to be kept in the possession of the sheriff pending the court's determination. Orders are not to be had simply for asking. Courts must satisfy themselves that a proper case has made out, more so if the subject-matter is of a technical nature. The applicant alleged copyright infringement as basis for application for the ''Anton Piller'' order. The documents he was alleged to have copyright in were neither identified nor produced. That the applicant was the author of those documents, together with the originality of alleged works, was not proved to the satisfaction of the court. It was not alleged that there was a written assignment of copyright by the author to the applicant. It appeared that the allegations concerning possible infringement of copyright were purely speculative in their attempt to obtain the order. == Facts == The appellant close corporation had, without notice, brought an urgent ''ex parte'' application seeking a rule ''nisi'' with interim effect against the first and second respondents. The order, referred to as an ''Anton Piller'' order by counsel, was granted by the High Court. The order provided for the removal of goods by the sheriff and the handing over of those goods to the appellant. The sheriff, together with a member of the appellant and the appellant's attorney, duly proceeded to the residence of the first and second respondents, and seized what they wanted. The rule was later discharged by the court; the appellant appealed against this ruling. The first and second respondents had been party to a partnership agreement with the appellant, and wished to withdraw from this agreement. The appellant was prepared to buy them out, but insisted that they agree to a restraint-of-trade clause. The first and second respondents refused to do this. As the original contract had not contained a restraint-of-trade clause, the first and second respondents took steps to begin their own and similar business. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Memory Institute SA v Hansen」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|