This is an extract of our Search Orders document, which we sell as part of our Civil Procedure Notes collection written by the top tier of Oxford students.
The following is a more accessble plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Civil Procedure Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:
ESSAY PLAN 5 -search orders Search orders CPR 25.1 Ancillary injunctions (formerly known as Anton Piller orders) - inspect premises and to remove or secure evidence of any wrongdoing. Authorises a limited number of persons (applicant or his lawyer and supervising solicitor) to enter premises. A mandatory interim injunction which orders the D to permit the C's solicitors to search the D's premises and seize items and documents found there which would constitute evidence in the action of the C against the D. Civil Procedure Act 1997 - s7(8) : only high court can order. Andoh (2005) - search order plays a very important and commendable role via prevention of frustration of a fair trial by unscrupulous D's desiring to destroy vital evidence or docs before trial. Rank Film - Lord Wilberforce states it's discretionary and is "an illustration of the adaptability of equitable remedies to new situations" Distinguished from a search warrant (no power under common law to order entry and search premises in a civil case - Entick v Carrington) as it does not authorise the C to enter and search premises without the D's consent; but the D is required to give consent and failure to do so will amount to contempt of court and may lead to the drawing of adverse inferences when the action is heard. Staines 1983 - distinction not really convincing. Dockray and Laddie (1990) - it seems that failure to comply with the terms of a Piller order is always a contempt (Manor Electronics) ; that a defendant who declines to comply with an order while seeking to discharge it does so at his or her peril if the application fails; and that if the application succeeds, nevertheless some penalty, at least in costs, is likely to be imposed, although this is a matter of judicial impression and discretion. This summary reflects the advice which is regularly given to defendants. The result is that most defendants consent and obey the court's order without first challenging it and, in consequence, suffer the damage and distress of a search and seizure. Harshness Nikpour - Donaldson LJ: search order and freezing order = "nuclear weapons" Yousif - Donaldson LJ (dissenting): "draconian power...used in only exceptional cases" - people entitled to privacy.
Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Civil Procedure Notes.