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
Ian McKellen and Patrick Stewart bromance continues: X-Men star gushes about 'pussy cat' BFF Patrick Stewart
David Cameron stung by jellyfish: PM hurt after ignoring advice of locals while on holiday
South Korea ferry: Vice principal rescued from sinking ship found hanged
Hollande's affair: Catherine Deneuve and Sophie Marceau in war of words over President's relationship with Julie Gayet
Kim Jong-un, crowds and contraband kit: Inside North Korea with the the Pyongyang marathon winner
The food poverty scandal that shames Britain: Nearly 1m people rely on handouts to eat – and benefit reforms may be to blame
US Navy christens huge $3 billion destroyer ship USS Zumwalt that appears as a fishing boat on enemy radar
Scottish independence: It is the English who should be on their knees, begging the Scots to vote ‘No’
Nigel Farage fatigue? Half of voters ‘immune’ to Ukip’s appeal
Nigel Farage: I’m taking on the status quo, and the Establishment’s fighting back
Refugee facing deportation from Sweden saved by fellow passengers refusing to let plane leave
- 1 KFC 'sorry' after lesbian couple are kicked out of Bath restaurant for 'heavy petting'
- 2 Dylan Tombides: West Ham confirm 20-year-old striker has died after battle with cancer
- 3 24 people applied for the 'world's toughest job', here are their interviews
- 4 'Sinful': Video of British Muslims dancing to Pharrell Williams's hit Happy comes under attack
- 5 PFA Player of the Year: Luis Suarez, Daniel Sturridge and Steven Gerrard all nominated as Liverpool dominate award shortlist
£35000 - £50000 per annum + benefits+bonus+package: Harrington Starr: SharePoi...
£80000 - £95000 per annum: Charter Selection: A leading Global organisation Ja...