Search Orders

August 16, 2025

Search Orders and Imaging Orders, Updated Procedure under CPR Part 25

What Are Search Orders and Imaging Orders?

A search order, previously known as an Anton Piller order, is a powerful interim remedy that allows an applicant to enter an opponent’s premises to search for and seize evidence or property. It is typically sought without warning to the opponent, i.e., without notice, to prevent them from destroying or hiding evidence. A search order compels the respondent to permit a supervised search of their home or business so that important documents or items are preserved.

An imaging order is a related remedy that allows an independent IT expert to copy electronic data from devices or online accounts. Imaging orders are considered less intrusive than full search orders, but they serve a similar goal of preserving evidence, particularly digital evidence on computers, smartphones, or cloud accounts. Often, imaging orders are used alongside search orders or on their own to ensure electronic files are not deleted or altered. Under the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), the court’s power to grant these orders is now explicitly recognised in CPR 25.1(1)(h) for search orders and CPR 25.1(1)(i) for imaging orders.

Recent Changes to CPR Part 25 (2025)

The procedure for obtaining search orders and other interim remedies has been modernised and streamlined as of 6 April 2025. A new Part 25 of the CPR came into force on that date, restructuring the rules on interim remedies into a clearer format. Notably, CPR Part 25 was renamed from “Interim Remedies and Security for Costs” to simply “Interim Remedies,” and it is now divided into six sections for easier navigation. These sections cover:

• Interim Remedies in general
• Interim Injunctions
• Freezing Injunctions
• Search and Imaging Orders
• Interim Payment Orders
• Security for Costs

Along with renumbering and renaming, the rules themselves were updated to reflect modern practice. Two old Practice Directions, PD25A and PD25B, which used to contain detailed procedures for search orders and freezing orders, have been revoked and their content integrated into the new Part 25. This means practitioners no longer need to cross refer to a separate PD for most requirements, because the key obligations, such as evidence and supervision in search orders, are now codified in the rules. For example, CPR Part 25 now explicitly mentions the court’s power to grant imaging orders, which confirms the availability and nature of this remedy where previously it was just established by case law.

Another significant change is the introduction of updated model order templates. Historically, standard form orders for search orders and imaging orders were provided in the practice directions. From April 2025, these have been replaced by a single combined Model Search and Imaging Order, along with two model orders for freezing injunctions. The model Search and Imaging Order is a template that applicants must use as the basis for drafting the order they seek. In fact, the rules now state that “the applicant must use the wording of the model search and imaging order” approved by the courts, with any modifications clearly identified to the judge.

The combined model is designed to promote consistency and clarity in these applications, and it even comes with helpful footnotes and an “Important Note” reminding applicants of critical points. For instance, the model order’s note emphasises that the draft order should include only the necessary parts, and any departures from the standard text must be explained. It also serves as a prompt about the duty of full and frank disclosure by featuring a front-page reminder that the applicant must disclose all material facts when making a without notice application.

Finally, the language of the rules and orders has been modernised to reflect current technology. Outdated references to telephone hearings or EU laws have been removed, with updated references to remote hearings and digital evidence procedures. In summary the new Part 25, in force from April 2025, reflects the realities of modern litigation and should make applying for these remedies more straightforward and standardised.

Criteria and Requirements for Granting a Search or Imaging Order

Because search orders are highly invasive, allowing one party to enter another’s premises, the court imposes strict criteria and safeguards. To obtain a search order, with or without an imaging order, an applicant will typically need to satisfy the following key conditions:

• Strong Prima Facie Case: You should have a strong case on the merits, often a strong prima facie claim against the respondent. Courts will not grant such drastic relief on a speculative or weak claim.
• Serious Potential Harm: You must show that you will suffer serious harm or damage if the order is not granted. For example, in fraud or intellectual property cases, you might argue that without a search order, vital evidence would be lost and your ability to enforce your rights would be irreparably undermined.
• Real Risk of Evidence Destruction: Perhaps most critically, you must provide evidence that there is a real possibility the respondent will destroy or hide incriminating evidence or property if put on notice. This might involve demonstrating past behaviour or other indicators that the respondent cannot be trusted to preserve the evidence voluntarily. The element of surprise, via a without notice search, is justified only if such a risk exists.
• Proportionality and Specificity: The order should be no wider than necessary. The items or documents sought should be specified as clearly as possible, and the search should be limited to what is needed to prevent justice from being thwarted. The court will consider whether a less intrusive means, such as an imaging order alone or some preservation order, would suffice instead of a full search. Imaging orders, being less intrusive, might be favoured if copying data is enough to secure the evidence.
• Interested Parties: In some cases, you can even apply for a search order against a third party (someone who is not a named defendant to the claim) if that third party is in possession of relevant evidence or assets. The rules allow search orders against non-parties in appropriate circumstances, though the same stringent tests apply.

These criteria largely stem from case law, specifically the classic Anton Piller case principles, but they are reflected in practice and in the footnotes accompanying the new model order.  The judge needs to be persuaded that the draconian step of a search is justified by the urgency and gravity of the situation.

Procedure for Applying (Evidence, Notice, and Hearings)

Evidence and Application

An application for a search order or imaging order must be supported by detailed affidavit evidence, or a sworn affirmation, rather than a simple witness statement. This is a deliberate requirement emphasising the seriousness of the application. In the affidavit, the applicant must:

• State the exact address of the premises to be searched, and clarify if it is a private home or business premises.
• Identify the proposed “Supervising Solicitor”, who must be an independent solicitor (not from the applicant’s firm) experienced in executing search orders, and include their name, firm, address, and relevant experience. If an imaging order is also sought, the affidavit should similarly name an independent IT expert who will carry out the data imaging.
• Fully and frankly disclose the reasons why the order is necessary, including the likelihood that relevant material would be destroyed or removed if the order is not made. This part of the evidence is crucial: the court expects the applicant to come clean about all pertinent facts, good or bad, and explain why no notice can be given to the other side. Any past instances of the respondent destroying evidence, or any critical timing issues, should be detailed here. The duty of full and frank disclosure means you must reveal any facts that might be unfavourable to your case as well. Failing to do so can result in the order later being discharged for material non disclosure.

The application will usually be made without notice to the respondent (ex parte). CPR Part 25 expressly permits this where there are good reasons, such as the need for secrecy to prevent the destruction of evidence. Because the respondent is not present to give their side of the story, the court relies on the applicant’s full disclosure of all material facts.

Practically, “without notice” also means the procedure is urgent: applicants often file their application and affidavit and then seek an immediate hearing. Under the rules, unless there is genuine secrecy needed, the applicant should at least attempt to inform the respondent’s lawyers that an application is being made, though not giving details that would defeat the purpose. In truly urgent cases, CPR 25.8 allows the papers to be filed just a couple of hours before the hearing (or even after, with permission). The key is to act quickly and diligently.

The Court Hearing

The application will be heard by a High Court judge (or another designated judge) because of its seriousness. By rule, only certain judges can grant search orders and freezing injunctions. At the hearing, the judge will scrutinise the evidence and often ask the applicant’s counsel to confirm various undertakings (promises to the court) and compliance with the model order format.

Since April 2025, any deviations from the standard model order must be pointed out to the judge. This means that if you removed or altered any paragraphs from the template, you need to explain why. This ensures the judge is aware of exactly what is being ordered and that nothing unusual slips in unnoticed.

If the judge is satisfied, they will grant the order, usually in the terms of the draft presented, with any modifications the court requires. The order will clearly set out what the respondent must or must not do, including the scope of the search and/or imaging, the time and date it will take place, and so on.

Applicant’s Undertakings

As with any interim injunction, the applicant will be required to give certain undertakings to the court as the price of obtaining relief. These typically include:

• An undertaking to pay damages to the respondent and any affected third party for any loss caused by the order, if it later turns out the order was wrongly granted. This is the standard cross undertaking in damages, meant to protect the respondent in case of an unjustified search.
• If the order is granted without notice, an undertaking to serve the application, evidence, and a transcript or note of the hearing on the respondent as soon as possible. The respondent must be informed of what happened in court, so they have a chance to respond or apply to vary or discharge the order.
• The order will also include a return date for a second hearing. This gives the respondent an opportunity to come before the court, usually a week or two later, to argue that the order should be lifted or modified. The applicant undertakes to return to court on that date to justify the continuation of the order.
• If the application was made before issuing a claim form or before formally issuing the application notice, there will be undertakings to issue the claim and pay the required court fees immediately (typically the next working day). In other words, you cannot delay the actual lawsuit. You must formally start the proceedings right away, since interim orders are not meant to exist in a vacuum.

All these undertakings are usually recorded in the order itself, and the model order has fields for them. Breaching an undertaking to the court can have serious consequences, so applicants must be prepared to follow through.

Execution of the Order

Once granted, the search order must be carried out strictly according to its terms. Service of the order on the respondent is a special process: unless the court permits otherwise, the order must be served in person by the Supervising Solicitor, not by the applicant or their representatives alone. The Supervising Solicitor’s role is to ensure the order is executed fairly and that the respondent’s rights are respected during the search. For example, the Supervising Solicitor will explain the order to the respondent, ensure that only approved items are searched for, and make a report to the court afterwards if required. The presence of this independent solicitor is a critical safeguard to prevent abuse of the procedure.

If the respondent or someone at the premises is likely to be alone during the search (an “unaccompanied person”), the court may direct that an additional person, often another solicitor or an appropriate individual, accompany the Supervising Solicitor at all times. This is to avoid any allegations of improper conduct during enforcement. Notably, the terminology is now gender neutral, meaning it covers any unaccompanied person, not just women as the old rules did.

During execution, the respondent is usually ordered to allow the search party to enter and remain on the premises. They are often required to hand over any items listed in the order (such as certain documents or storage devices), or to permit the IT expert to access computers to image their data. The order will set the time of day it can be executed, often during daytime hours, and may impose a deadline by which the search must start (commonly within a few days of the order). The respondent is also typically given a chance to consult a lawyer at the start of the search. For example, the order often provides that once the Supervising Solicitor serves the order, the respondent is allowed two hours to seek legal advice before the search commences, although precautions are taken to ensure no evidence is destroyed in the interim.

All items seized or copied are usually retained by the Supervising Solicitor or the applicant’s solicitors pending further order. The idea is that nothing seized can be used or inspected by the applicant until the court confirms the proper handling of those items at the return hearing. At that return hearing, the court will review the order in light of the respondent’s response, if any. The judge might continue, discharge, or vary the order and give directions for how any seized evidence is to be dealt with, such as how copies of electronic data will be searched and who bears the cost.

Conclusion

Search orders and imaging orders remain among the most robust tools in English civil litigation for preserving evidence. The recent updates to CPR Part 25, effective April 2025, have refined the procedure, but the fundamental principles remain the same: such orders are granted only in exceptional circumstances, and applicants must adhere to strict requirements of candour and precision. The rules now explicitly cover the imaging of electronic data and provide a single standardised framework for both search and imaging orders. By using the new combined model order and following the updated guidelines, practitioners can ensure their applications meet the latest procedural standards.

For clients and legal professionals, the takeaway is that while the threshold for obtaining a search or imaging order is high, the process has become clearer and more standardised. If you can demonstrate a strong case, a real risk of evidence being lost, and you act quickly and honestly, the court can grant relief to secure the evidence you need.

Any party contemplating such an order should seek specialist legal advice, prepare their evidence meticulously, and be ready to give full undertakings to the court. When used appropriately, search orders and imaging orders are invaluable tools to preserve justice, ensuring that crucial evidence is not spirited away before trial.

Need advice on a search order?

We act in urgent and complex matters involving commercial litigation, commercial disputes, and private law injunctions.

Please contact us or call us on 0151 541 2040 or 0203 846 2862.

Disclaimer: This article provides general information only. It does not constitute legal advice and must not be relied upon. You should obtain legal advice on the facts of your case.