Memory Institute SA v Hansen
South African legal case
Memory Institute SA CC t/a SA Memory Institute v Hansen and Others is an important case in South African law, heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal. The judges were Harms JA, Schutz JA, Cameron JA, Conradie JA and Heher JA, who heard the case on May 8, 2003, handing down judgment on May 16, 2003. PJ Heymans appeared for the appellant; MH Wessels SC for the respondents.
The case revolved around the requirements for Anton Piller orders. Such orders, the court found, are for preservation of evidence; they are not a substitute for possessory or proprietary claims. They require built-in protection measures such as the appointment of an independent attorney to supervise their execution. The applicant and his own attorney may not form part of search party. The goods seized are to be kept in the possession of the sheriff pending the court's determination. Orders are not to be had simply for asking. Courts must satisfy themselves that a proper case has made out, more so if the subject-matter is of a technical nature.
This brief starts where responsible research should: with the source description of “Memory Institute SA v Hansen” as south African legal case. Everything that follows is an evidence route, not borrowed authority.
Why this record matters
The subject matters to the general reference register because the source frames it as south African legal case. Its deeper value depends on whether names, dates, institutions and citations support that framing.
Vocabulary and entity names are the principal evidence signals here, because they determine the precision of every later search. The source revision retrieved here is dated Jan 17, 2024. The linked authority identifier is Q17073047. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 2003.
Overview language is designed for orientation and should not be treated as a substitute for the evidence cited beneath it. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Memory Institute SA v Hansen”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Memory Institute SA v Hansen primary sources, Memory Institute SA v Hansen archive and Memory research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Memory Institute SA v Hansen”?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
- What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Memory Institute SA v Hansen” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.