Morris v Donaldson

The court may order delivery up of identified property, but the power does not extend to a general investigation of disputed ownership. An order requiring entry into a person’s home is highly intrusive and should be made only in exceptional circumstances. The very exceptional standard applicable to an Anton Piller order provides an indication of the rarity of such relief. Where the defendant gives adequate undertakings to identify and deliver items accepted as belonging to the claimant, further intrusive injunctions are inappropriate.

The claimant sought orders requiring the defendant to permit access to her home so that he could identify and recover possessions, prepare inventories of disputed and jointly owned items, and obtain further directions concerning ownership and valuation. The claimant also sought delivery up of specified essential items. The defendant did not claim ownership of the listed essential items and offered undertakings concerning their delivery, together with undertakings to identify other items accepted as belonging to the claimant and arrange their removal. The central issues were the scope of the court’s power to order delivery up and whether intrusive access and inventory orders were appropriate.

1. Delivery up. Under Part 25.1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court had power to order delivery up of property belonging to the claimant. That power was limited to identified items. Since the defendant did not claim the essential items and undertook to make them available, an order for delivery up was unnecessary and inappropriate. The undertakings were accepted.
2. Intrusive access. The court had power to require the defendant to permit the claimant and others to enter her home for the proposed purposes. Such an order was, however, extremely intrusive and would not ordinarily be made. The circumstances justifying an Anton Piller order had to be very exceptional, and the proposed access orders required similarly careful restraint.
3. Alternative arrangements. The defendant’s undertakings to prepare, within seven days, a list of items she considered belonged to the claimant or were jointly owned, and within 21 days to arrange delivery of items she accepted belonged to the claimant, provided an adequate and proportionate course. The claimant could prepare his own list of items remaining in the property; the difficulty of recalling every item was not sufficient to justify entry into the home.
4. Jurisdiction and disposal. The Queen’s Bench Division was not the appropriate forum to resolve disputes about ownership of personal property. The action was therefore to be transferred, subject to further submissions, to the Wandsworth County Court or an appropriate division of the High Court. No further order was made on the substantive access application.