Search orders, also known as search and seizure orders and Anton Piller orders, are a form of interim mandatory injunction.
These orders allow a party’s solicitors to enter another party’s premises to search for, copy, and seize specific goods or documents. They are typically used when there is a concern that evidence might be destroyed, altered, or hidden. Such orders are requested to secure crucial evidence believed to be in the possession of the other party, especially when there is a genuine concern that key evidence might be compromised before a formal court order can be obtained.
Search orders can be used in criminal and intellectual property cases as well as in family cases. Here, we will be considering applications for search orders made by parties to existing financial remedy proceedings during a divorce.
If you’re considering or going through a divorce and think you may require a search order, click below for a free initial consultation with one of our expert divorce solicitors.
Applications for search orders can be made at any stage during proceedings by an applicant, and at any time after filing an acknowledgement of service by a defendant. However, applying as soon as practicable will give an applicant the best chance of success.
Search orders can be made against any party who the applicant has a cause of action with or who is a party to the proceedings. Additionally, in some cases, search orders can be made against someone who is not a party to the proceedings if they hold evidence relevant to the proceedings. Search orders can be made against an individual, group of individuals or companies.
Applications for search orders are usually made on a without notice basis, meaning that the defendant will not be informed that an application has been made until after the hearing of the application has taken place. Without notice applications can only be made when the circumstances of the case are exceptional, and urgency is required.
Search orders are used to preserve evidence or property that is, or may become relevant to, an action. Such preservation should help to protect the interests of the applicant who is entitled to a fair division of matrimonial assets following a divorce.
Here, preservation is the operative word. Search orders should not be used to collect evidence or force a defendant to comply with their obligations of full and frank disclosure during financial remedy proceedings. However, if you believe that your spouse will not give full and frank disclosure, it amay be possible to obtain disclosure via a search order from the court. This type of order will only be granted if a less draconian remedy is deemed insufficient and there is a legitimate risk that a defendant may conceal or dispose of documents or assets in order to put them beyond the reach of the applicant.
Due to this requirement of preservation, the purpose of a search order could be defeated if the defendant has prior knowledge of the application, as they may tried to hide assets or evidence accordingly before the injunction is granted. This is precisely why applications for search orders are normally made without notice.
It is important to note that if you believe that matrimonial assets are being hidden, you must not resort to self-help methods of searching through your spouse’s confidential papers. Case law has determined that it is only under a search order that a party can be obligated to allow the other to enter their premises and search for and preserve relevant evidence.
The scope of the defendant’s premises includes those premises specified in the order as well as any premises under the control of the defendant. Search orders granted over residential properties are often different to those granted over business or other premises, as disruption of the familial home could cause unnecessary distress for any children of the family.
Search orders are incredibly draconian remedies, and a party could be held in contempt of court if they do not comply with their obligations under the order. There are, however, several safeguards built into search orders by the court to protect both parties to an application.
It is important to note that applying for any interim injunction will be both costly and time-consuming and you should evaluate its necessity and the viability of alternatives before proceeding with any application.
Similarly, a search order does not allow the applicant to force entry into the premises of the defendant
Vardags Limited is a limited company trading as Vardags, Company No 7199468, registered in England and Wales, having its registered office at 10 Old Bailey, London EC4M 7NG. Vardags is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA Number 535955). Its VAT number is 99 001 7230.
Vardags uses the term ‘Partner’ as a professional title only, to describe a Senior Solicitor, Employee or Consultant with relevant experience, expertise and qualifications (whether legally qualified or otherwise) to merit the title. Our Partners are not partners in the legal sense. They are not liable for the debts, liabilities or obligations of Vardags Limited. Similarly, the term ’Director’ is a professional title only, to describe an employee or consultant of Vardags with relevant experience, expertise and qualifications to merit the title. It does not necessarily imply that the relevant individual is a director of Vardags Limited.
A list of the directors of Vardags Limited and a list of the names of those using the title of ’Director’ and ’Partner’ together with their official status is available for inspection at Vardags’ registered office.