[HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE]

PRACTICE DIRECTION (MAREVA INJUNCTIONS AND ANTON

PILLER ORDERS)

Injunction - Mareva injunction - Practice - Standard form of order - Cross-undertaking in damages

Practice - Discovery - Anton Piller order - Practice - Standard form of order - Execution

1. The granting of a Mareva injunction or Anton Piller order is a matter for the discretion of the judge hearing the application. However, it is desirable that a consistent approach should in general be adopted in relation to the form and carrying out of such orders, since they represent serious restrictions on the rights of those persons subjected to them imposed after hearing only the applicant's case on an ex parte application. This practice direction sets out guidelines for the assistance of judges and those who apply for these orders.

2. Attached to this practice direction are new standard forms of the following orders: Annex 1 - Anton Piller order; Annex 2 - worldwide Mareva injunction; Annex 3 - Mareva injunction limited to assets within the jurisdiction. These forms, inevitably, are complicated, but their language and layout are intended to make it easier for persons served with these orders to understand what they mean. These forms of order should be used save to the extent that the judge hearing a particular application considers there is a good reason for adopting a different form.

3. The following matters should be borne in mind in relation to an ex parte application for any of these orders.

(A) On an application for either a Mareva or an Anton Piller order

(1) Where practicable the papers to be used on the application should be lodged with the judge at least two hours before the hearing.

(2) An applicant should be required, in an appropriate case, to support his cross-undertaking in damages by a payment into court or the provision of a bond by an insurance company. Alternatively, the judge may order a payment by way of such security to the applicant's solicitor to be held by the solicitor as an officer of the court pending further order.

(3) So far as practicable, any application for the discharge or variation of the order should be dealt with effectively on the return date.

(B) On an application for an Anton Piller order

(1)(a) As suggested in Universal Thermonsensors Ltd. v. Hibben [1992] 1 W.L.R. 840, 861 the specimen order provides for it to be served by a supervising solicitor and carried out in his presence and under his supervision. The supervising solicitor should be an experienced solicitor, having some familiarity with the operation of Anton Pillerorders, who is not a member or employee of the firm acting for the applicant. The evidence in support of the application should include the identity and experience of the proposed supervising solicitor. (b) If in any particular case the judge does not think it appropriate to provide for the order to be served by a supervising solicitor, his reasons should be expressed in the order itself.

(2) Where the premises are likely to be occupied by an unaccompanied woman and the supervising solicitor is a man, at least one of the persons attending on the service of the order should be a woman.

(3) Where the nature of the items removed under the order makes this appropriate, the applicant should be required to insure them.

(4) The applicant should undertake not to inform any third party of the proceedings until after the return date.

(5) In future, applications in the Queen's Bench Division will no longer be heard by the judge in chambers. In both Chancery and Queen's Bench Divisions, whenever practicable, applications will be listed before a judge in such a manner as to ensure that he has sufficient time to read and consider the papers in advance.

(6) On circuit, applications will be listed before a High Court judge or a circuit judge, sitting as a judge of the High Court specially designated by the presiding judge to hear such applications.

4. If an Anton Piller order or Mareva injunction is discharged on the return date, the judge should always consider whether it is appropriate that he should assess damages at once and direct immediate payment by the applicant.

5. This practice direction is made by the Lord Chief Justice with the concurrence of the President of the Family Division and the Vice-Chancellor. It applies to all divisions of the High Court.

LORD TAYLOR OF GOSFORTH C.J.

SIR STEPHEN BROWN P.

SIR DONALD NICHOLLS V.-C.