Search Orders and Imaging Orders

Search and imaging orders are powerful interim remedies under the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR 25.15–25.19), allowing parties to preserve critical evidence, whether they’re physical documents or digital data, that might otherwise be destroyed or concealed hidden.

These orders were once known as Anton Piller orders and now updated with a statutory definition for imaging orders since April 2025. These orders are granted without notice in exceptional cases but demand strict compliance with safeguards like supervising solicitors and full disclosure.

A search order compels the respondent to allow an authorised search party to enter specified premises and search for, identify, and preserve documents, data, or items that are relevant to actual or proposed proceedings and at risk of being concealed or destroyed.

An imaging order is a related remedy that focuses specifically on electronic data rather than physical items. It authorises an independent IT expert to create forensic copies of electronic devices or accounts on computers, servers, USB drives, mobile phones, cloud storage or email accounts, so that data can be preserved exactly as it exists at the time of execution, including deleted items and metadata.

The Anton Piller Case That Started It All

Search orders and imaging orders were historically known as Anton Piller orders, after the leading 1976 Court of Appeal decision in Anton Piller KG v Manufacturing Processes Ltd. In that case, the claimant suspected that its confidential technical drawings and trade secrets were being passed to competitors and persuaded the court to permit a without‑notice inspection of the defendant’s premises so the evidence could be preserved before it disappeared.

The court stressed that this type of order sits at the extreme end of its powers as it allows entry onto premises and inspection of material without giving the respondent prior warning, which is a serious interference with privacy and property rights. Lord Denning MR and Ormrod LJ therefore set out stringent criteria which have shaped the modern approach.

Although the expression “Anton Piller order” is still sometimes used, the CPR now refers to search and imaging orders since April 2025.

When These Orders Can Be Used

The court will usually only grant search orders in exceptional circumstances where ordinary disclosure obligations are not enough to protect justice. Typical scenarios include:

Fraud and asset‑tracing cases: Where there is a risk that fraudsters will wipe computers, destroy documents, or move assets once they know they are being pursued.
Breach of confidence and misuse of trade secrets: Where sensitive technical, customer, or pricing information may be copied or passed to competitors and then deleted.

Intellectual property disputes: Where counterfeiting or unauthorised software is used, where infringing items, packaging, and digital records need to be preserved before they can be disposed of.
Cases involving dishonest employees or agents: Where internal documents and emails may be rapidly removed or altered.

Because the order is invasive, the court will scrutinise whether less intrusive steps could achieve the same aim without needing a search or imaging order.

Legal Test and Requirements

Courts apply a structured test before granting a search or imaging order to ensure that the order is genuinely necessary and proportionate. This typically involves five key points which are rigorously assessed on without-notice applications.

A strong prima facie case: The applicant must demonstrate a strong, arguable claim on the merits which are far beyond mere speculation. This requires detailed, credible evidence like witness statements, contracts, emails, or financial records showing wrongdoing
Serious potential or actual damage: Without the order, the applicant faces grave, quantifiable harm, like major financial losses, business collapse, or irreparable loss of trade secrets. Courts often dismiss claims where damage is trivial.
Clear evidence that relevant material is in the respondent’s possession: Specific facts must pinpoint the respondent’s control over the items, backed by insider tips, prior disclosures, delivery records, or digital footprints like IP logs.
A real possibility that material will be destroyed, concealed, or altered: Objective evidence of risk is essential like past deletions (e.g., wiped hard drives), threats overheard, erratic data behavior, or the respondent’s history of evasion.
Proportionality: The order’s benefits to justice must outweigh its harm to the respondent, balancing claim value, intrusion level, data volume, and business disruption. Safeguards like time limits or privilege protocols mitigate this.

Who Can Apply and Who Can Be Targeted

Anyone who is, or expects to be, a party to existing or proposed civil proceedings can ask the court for a search or imaging order, most commonly claimants. Under the Civil Procedure Act 1997 and CPR, the application is treated as an interim remedy, meaning it is linked to substantive proceedings in which the underlying dispute will be resolved.

A defendant can also apply in some situations but generally must first file an acknowledgment of service or a defence, unless the court dispenses with that requirement in the particular circumstances. This ensures the court has a clear procedural framework and understands the basis of the underlying dispute.

Orders can target defendants, proposed defendants, or third parties holding relevant evidence, if a strong case and destruction risk exist.

How To Apply for Search Orders and Imaging Orders

Applications are usually made without notice to avoid tipping off the respondent, and they are normally heard in private (in chambers) because of their urgency and sensitivity. The basic procedural steps are as follows:

Filing an application notice (generally on Form N244 in the High Court) which states clearly that a search and/or imaging order is sought and summarises the relief requested.
Serving detailed affidavit or evidence that explains the background to the dispute, the nature of the claim, the evidence relied on, and crucially, why the order is necessary and why giving notice would create a risk of destruction of evidence.
Providing a draft form of order, usually based on the relevant model search and imaging order now adopted under CPR 25, tailored to the facts of the case.

The affidavit must, among other things, identify the premises to be searched and whether they are residential or business premises, name the proposed supervising solicitor and any IT expert, and disclose any previous applications or relevant facts that might affect the judge’s assessment. Because this is a without‑notice application, any failure to disclose relevant information can later lead to the order being set aside and costs penalties for the applicant.

How To Apply for Search Orders and Imaging Orders

Filing an application notice (generally on Form N244 in the High Court) which states clearly that a search and/or imaging order is sought and summarises the relief requested.
Serving detailed affidavit or evidence that explains the background to the dispute, the nature of the claim, the evidence relied on, and crucially, why the order is necessary and why giving notice would create a risk of destruction of evidence.
Providing a draft form of order, usually based on the relevant model search and imaging order now adopted under CPR 25, tailored to the facts of the case.

The Role of the Supervising Solicitor

Given the intrusiveness of search orders and imaging orders, it’s important to make sure they are executed properly. The appointment of an independent supervising solicitor, who is not part of the applicant’s own legal team and has experience with these types of orders, is the best way to ensure fairness.

The supervising solicitor does not search for documents or data themselves; that task is carried out by the search party, often including representatives of the applicant and independent IT specialists. The court order normally sets time limits for when the search can be carried out (for example, during business hours) and for filing the supervising solicitor’s report and any follow‑up applications.

To reduce unnecessary disruption, the order may include safeguards such as permitting essential business operations to continue, allowing the respondent to contact their lawyers, and limiting the search to clearly defined categories of material. The court also frequently includes provisions about how potentially privileged material is to be handled, such as being sealed pending a further decision by the court.

Want To Talk?

Do you suspect that evidence is at risk in your dispute? Don’t wait for it to vanish, talk to us for expert guidance on securing search orders and imaging orders. You can book a FREE consultation through the book a meeting button on this page.