Lack of full disclosure: special costs in failed Anton Piller Order
By Jordan Deering
In recent years, employers have increasingly sought and obtained Anton Piller Orders (APOs) where a departing employee leaves with confidential information. The strategy is often extremely effective: the employer recovers the confidential information and obtains significant leverage in the litigation, usually prompting settlement. While effective, APOs are not for the uninitiated — the courts have referred to this remedy as one of the ‘nuclear weapons’ of litigation. Employers and their counsel must exercise extreme caution when using APOs.
The British Columbia Supreme Court’s recent decision in Pierce v Jivraj 2014 BCSC 926 represents a warning for employers and their counsel in seeking an APO. In that case, the court ordered special costs personally against the plaintiff’s counsel for failure to meet the high burden of full disclosure in the APO application.
The action originated as a defamation suit by Mr Pierce against Mr Jivraj. Mr Pierce alleged that Mr Jivraj improperly published statements that various securities exchange commissions had imposed regulatory sanctions against Mr Pierce for ‘ill-gotten gains’ from stock manipulation…
Click on the link below to read the rest of the Dentons briefing.
News from Dentons
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Dentons
Christopher Graham spoke at the recent Privacy Laws & Business Conference in Cambridge, UK. Here is an update of the main points.
The latest action to be taken by the competition authorities is the public consultation on the provisional decision by the CMA on PCAs and banking services to SMEs.
Analysis from The Lawyer
The continent’s boom in natural resources and renewable energy is sparking an infrastructure drive
Shearman & Sterling is making its presence felt in the City, squaring up to magic circle firms and looking to muscle in on key relationships. Private equity house Bridgepoint is one outfit that has had its head turned by the US firm.