- Doorstep delivery-up orders following theft of confidential information (Hyperama Plc v Aristeidis Poulis)
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was the background?
- What did the court decide?
- Case details
Dispute resolution analysis: This case is a useful reminder to practitioners of the less draconian form of search order, the doorstep delivery-up order. The key difference is that an applicant is not entitled to conduct the search him or herself (by their lawyers), but rather attends (but does not enter) the respondent’s property to demand immediate delivery of certain documents. Pepperall J provides a useful summary of the legal framework, as well as reminding applicants about what is or is not permitted in a without notice application. The judge also comments on the extent to which ‘gagging’ (or ‘non-disclosure’) orders may be made against respondents, preventing those respondents from tipping each other or third parties off about either or both the application or the underlying claim. Written by Matthew McGhee, barrister at 20 Essex Street.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial