LAW REPORT v 10 October 1995: Information order despite risk of violence
Coca-Cola Co and another v Gilbey and others; Chancery Division (Mr Justice Lightman); 15 September 1995
Tuesday 10 October 1995
Mr Justice Lightman dismissed an application by the 16th defendant, Periclis Pericleous, also known as Peter Smith, for a discharge of an Anton Piller order requiring him to provide certain information.
The plaintiffs, on discovering a large-scale criminal organisation manufacturing and selling counterfeit Coca-Cola and Schweppes lemonade, commenced proceedings for injunctions restraining infringement of trademark and passing off and damages. The plaintiff obtained an Anton Piller order against Mr Pericleous requiring him to allow the plaintiffs to search his premises, to deliver up certain items and documents and to give information relating to the whereabouts of items, documents, addresses used by the organisation and the names of those involved.
Mr Pericleous complied with the order save for providing the required information. He applied for a discharge of that part of the order on the grounds that the information would incriminate him in criminal proceedings and his and his family's safety would be at risk because those involved had a propensity towards violence.
David Stockill (Glaisyers, Birmingham) for Mr Pericleous; Peter Leaver QC and Michael Tapping (Rouse & Co) for the plaintiffs.
Mr Justice Lightman said that section 72 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 provided that the fact that compliance with an order might expose a person to criminal proceedings for a related offence should not excuse that person from answering or complying with the order if the order was made in proceedings for infringement of trade mark or passing off. The first ground therefore had no substance.
Mr Pericleous applied to give further evidence about the risk of violence in the absence of the plaintiffs and their legal representatives. In adversarial litigation a judge must only receive and act on one party's evidence if it was at the same time made available to the other party. A judge could not receive or act on evidence which was not then or later to be made available to the other party or the other party's lawyers and experts. That course was totally objectionable to the court.
Accepting the evidence at face value and taking it as established that there was a real risk of physical violence the question raised was whether the existence of such a risk was a sufficient ground for discharging the order for disclosure. The interest of the plaintiffs in obtaining the information must be balanced against the interest of Mr Pericleous in avoiding the risk of violence to himself and his family.
In any ordinary case where the plaintiff had a pressing need for the information, the existence of the risk of violence against the potential informant should not outweigh the interest of the plaintiff in obtaining the information. The rule of law required that the law should not be deflected from following its ordinary course.
In a case such as the present where the evidence established that the person possessed of information was a party to the infringement, the fact that his associates had a propensity towards violence could not exempt him from the ordinary obligation imposed on such a tortfeasor to provide the information necessary to protect and preserve the interests of the victim.
The public interest likewise required the same result. In particular there was public interest (1) in the suppression as soon as possible of the fraud on the public; (2) that tortfeasors should not have the comfort that they can avoid the obligation to make disclosure by pleading risk of danger to themselves; (3) that men of violence should not be able by threats to silence those with knowledge of their wrongdoing; and that (4) the evil men of violence who ran the organisation should be identified and promptly and effectively dealt with.
The interest of the plaintiffs and the public in the provision of the information outweighed the interest of Mr Pericleous in avoiding any risk of violence to which disclosure might expose him. The order for disclosure must be complied with without any further delay.
Ying Hui Tan, Barrister
- 1 Scottish independence: Ireland since 1919 is a lesson for Scotland in what a Yes vote means
- 2 Thailand deaths: Pair's bloodied bodies found naked on Koh Tao beach
- 3 Lego breaks out of the toy box and heads for the gallery
- 4 Vogue under fire for 'Big Booty' article
- 5 Julian Assange and Edward Snowden join piracy mogul Kim Dotcom’s political campaign in New Zealand
Thailand deaths: Pair's bloodied bodies found naked on Koh Tao beach
Russia freezes Ukraine into submission: Kiev admits country doesn't have enough fuel for winter
Jihadi John': MI5 may have identified Isis militant who killed David Haines but options limited
Scottish independence: Police will be on high alert on Friday whatever the result
David Haines beheading: David Cameron says Britain will hunt down Isis 'monsters' shown in video murdering aid worker
Daniele Watts: Django Unchained actress detained by Los Angeles police after being mistaken for a prostitute
The political class is doing what Hitler couldn’t – destroying Britain
Scottish independence: Nationalist leader Jim Sillars threatens pro-union companies with 'day of reckoning' after independence
Scottish independence: Yes campaign feels the heat as Alex Salmond's NHS claims come under furious attack
£23m Birmingham cycle scheme is attacked by Tory councillor for not catering to the elderly
Salmond accused of laughing off national debt with ‘what are they going to do: invade?’ joke
£32000 - £40000 per annum + bonus: Ashdown Group: HR Manager (Generalist) -Old...
£45000 - £50000 per annum: Ashdown Group: Talent / Learning & Development Mana...
Up to £40,000: Ashdown Group: Standalone HR Manager role for an SME business b...
£350 - £400 per day: Orgtel: HR Analyst - Banking - Bristol - £350 - £400 per ...