The defendant had, over a long period, created infringing copies of works whose copyright was owned by the claimants. On investigation, large numbers of items were discovered, and the defendant had put the proceeds into readily identifiable assets. The plaintiff sought orders for their delivery up.
Held: The possibility of self-incrimination by the defendant was no bar to an order for their delivery up. The court set out guidelines for such actions saying: 1) There should be clear evidence of the defendant’s intention to dispose of the assets, but there should also be evidence that the assets had been acquired as a result of the defendant’s wrongful actions, and 2) Items for the use by the defendant in his ordinary daily life or lawful business should not be delivered up, but furnishings being objets d’art purchased to hide the proceeds could be claimed.
Lawton LJ: ‘On the facts put before us this was not a case of a Plaintiff seeking to freeze a Defendant’s assets pending trial in anticipation of getting judgment. It was one, which seemed to us to show that the first Defendant was conducting his affairs with intent to deprive anyone who got judgment against him of the fruits of victory. ‘
Lawton LJ
[1982] 3 WLR 746, [1982] 3 All ER 237
England and Wales
Updated: 14 October 2021; Ref: scu.245602