persons, three of whom were the second, third and fourth respondents.
12.2 The first applicant is a wholly owned subsidiary of the second applicant.
12.3 All of the second to eighth respondents worked for the first applicant until recently, and they are all now
associated with and employed by the first respondent.
12.4 The business of the company purchased by the second applicant, including its goodwill, was transferred
to the business of the first applicant.
12.5 The respondents acted unlawfully in:
12.5.1 Misappropriating to themselves the goodwill of the business purchased by the second applicant
and transferring it to the first respondent, which business they recently commenced;
12.5.2 Using as a springboard the first applicant's confidential information in order to establish the
business of the first respondent.
12.6 Certain of the confidential information related to the first applicant's Lotus Notes System which had been
modified to fit the first applicant's specific requirements, and which contains "details of all the first
applicant's customer contacts, every activity undertaken by first applicant in relation to each customer, a
complete and detailed customer history, supplier information and first applicant's complete purchasing
and pricing history".
12.7 By virtue of the fact that the respondents serviced the first applicant's customers exclusively, the
respondents have an intimate knowledge of each customer's infrastructure and computer systems in
place. "These systems are so complex that as an outside company it would not be possible to simply
walk in and start consulting with the customer you would first have to spend weeks to months to
acquire the detailed knowledge necessary to give that
Page 200 of [2001] 3 All SA 194 (C)
customer an equivalent service to that which had been provided by OCT and then the Network Solutions
Division of the first applicant. Moreover, all this information is stored on the first applicant's Lotus Notes
System which is described in the affidavits of Paul Moses, Deon White and Sharon Peckham, and is
central to the entire dispute. By virtue of the facts that the respondents are soliciting and servicing the
first applicant's customers, it is inevitable that they must have taken copies of or backups of this entire
system with them when they left first applicant, and are using it and the information contained in it in
their business."
12.8 By their unlawful conduct, the respondents intended to incorporate the confidential knowledge acquired
by them into the first respondent's business and thereby deprive the first applicant of the entire
business and goodwill which the second applicant had purchased.
12.9 The applicants had become aware that certain of the first applicant's customers were terminating their
contracts and transferring their business to the second respondent. The respondents were approaching
the first applicant's customers, who were receptive to the approaches.
12.10 To the extent that the first applicant has suffered damages as a result of the respondents' conduct, first
applicant intended to claim damages suffered by it from the first and second respondents.
12.11 The computerised information referred to in Part B of the schedule of listed items was vital evidence and
which needed "to be preserved in order that it could be produced as evidence when the damages action.
is heard. This is crucial evidence to establish the extent of the first applicant's damages..."
12.12 Apart from the Anton Piller relief sought, there is no other practical means of protecting the applicants'
rights.
12.13 By virtue of the manner in which the respondents have been able to start the business of the second
respondent, service first applicant's clients and solicit their business, "it is clear that they must have the
evidence listed in Part A of the schedule of listed items in their possession".
12.14 If the Anton Piller relief is not obtained ex parte, "I have no doubt that the respondents will deny having
used any of the first applicant's confidential information, and they will simply remove it from their
computer systems and use it surreptitiously as and when they need to. In the light of their conduct, as
fully set out herein, I believe that there is no prospect that they will admit to using the first applicant's
confidential information, or of returning it to the first applicant without retaining copies thereof."
12.15 The items in the order sought go no further "than are strictly necessary for the preservation of the
evidence which the applicants seek to preserve . . ."
[13] I proceed now to deal with the Part A documentation, namely the interim attachment order.
Page 201 of [2001] 3 All SA 194 (C)
[14] An order for the interim attachment of property or documents, in which a real or personal right is claimed, is not
a true Anton Piller order. See Cerebos Food Corp v Diverse Foods SA 1984 (4) SA 149 (T) at 164CF.
[15] To obtain such an interim attachment order, on an ex parte basis, an applicant must allege and prove that:
15.1 He has an existing real or personal right in the document or thing;
Cerebos Foods (supra) at 164D).
15.2 The respondent has the relevant document or thing in his possession or that there are good grounds for