An Anton Piller order was wrongfully made where it was used in order to get information to found a later prosecution. The privilege against self incrimination is available under Section 14 of the 1968 Act in contempt proceedings despite the fact that they are not criminal proceedings. Rimer J said: ‘the privilege remains intact and the basic principle still is that an Anton Piller [disclosure] order should not be made which includes provisions foreseeably likely to require the defendant to incriminate himself.’
Judges:
Rimer J
Citations:
Times 11-Oct-1996, [1998] Ch 109, [1996] FSR 819
Statutes:
Citing:
Cited – Tate Access Floors Inc v Boswell 1991
Senior employees were suspected of misappropriating the company’s funds.
Held: The authorities did not establish the wide proposition that where a defendant agrees to act as a fiduciary, he impliedly contracts not to raise the claim to the . .
Cited by:
Cited – The Coca-Cola Company and Another v Cengiz Aytacli and others ChD 30-Jan-2003
The claimant having succeeded in an action against the defendants, now sought an order for their committal for contempt, accusing them of having given false evidence, and of having failed to comply with court orders made. The defendant asserted a . .
Cited – CTB v News Group Newspapers Ltd and Thomas (2) QBD 23-May-2011
The claimant had obtained a privacy injunction, but the name of the claimant had nevertheless been widey distributed on the Internet. The defendant newspaper now sought to vary the terms. The second defendant did not oppose the injunction. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice
Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.79251
