The plaintiffs are manufacturers of small precision metal and plastic components. They are a wholly owned subsidiary of a multinational corporation with headquarters in the United Kingdom. The defendants were formerly the employees of the plaintiffs, having at different times resigned from the employment of the plaintiffs.

The aim of the present action is essentially to restrain the defendants from making use of the plaintiffs confidential/proprietary information and/or property without the plaintiffs consent and to require the defendants to return to the plaintiffs all books, equipment, software and other property of the plaintiffs which are in the defendants possession.

By an ex parte application made to the judge in chambers, the plaintiffs were, on 16 June 1989, granted an Anton Piller order permitting the plaintiffs by their representatives to enter the defendants premises to search for and remove certain specified documents and articles of the plaintiffs. The Anton Piller order was executed on the same day and the plaintiffs recovered a number of articles and documents pursuant thereto. The things recovered were duly recorded and acknowledged by both parties.

The matter now before me is a motion by counsel for the defendants praying that (i) the interim order made on 16 June 1989 be discharged; (ii) the documents and articles taken by the plaintiffs as a result of the execution of the Anton Piller order be returned to the defendants or their solicitors within three days; and (iii) there be an inquiry as to damages suffered by the defendants.

Counsel for the defendants raised three grounds in support of the contention that the interim order should be discharged. Firstly, there was no full and frank disclosure of material facts on the part of the plaintiffs at the time when the interim order was obtained. Secondly, there was no evidence, or no adequate evidence, before the judge for him to make the interim order. Thirdly, the plaintiffs do not really have any cause of action and are just fishing.

The affidavit in support of the application for the interim order was affirmed by one John Wilson, the managing director of the plaintiffs, and filed on 14 June 1989. In this affidavit, Mr Wilson gave a brief account of the employment of each of the three defendants, together with an indication of the sort of proprietary and confidential information to which each defendant was given access to. At the time of the termination of employment of the first and second defendants, they were each told in writing not to directly or indirectly disclose or use any Dynacast confidential information which was gained during your employment with us. Both the second and third defendants had each, on 15 July 1987, long before their resignation, signed a confidentiality agreement, under which each of them agreed:

(a) not, directly or indirectly, to disclose or make available to

anyone or to use outside the company organization during or after

my employment, any confidential information ...

(b) in the event of termination of my company employment, promptly to

deliver to the company all materials ... in my possession or

control ...

In the said affidavit, Mr Wilson also stated that it has come to his knowledge that the first defendant has started a business in direct competition with the plaintiffs and has employed the second and third defendants. Then followed two paragraphs which are the paragraphs now under contention before me and it is necessary that I set them out in full:

14 It has come to my knowledge, yesterday, that Lim, Lynda and Han

are in possession of confidential and proprietary information and

articles which were taken from the plaintiffs, without the

plaintiffs knowledge or permission. Annexed hereto and marked

JGW 5 are the types of property/information that the defendants