Search order meaning

This checklist sets out the principal points applicants ought to weigh up when seeking an imaging order. It highlights the considerations to bear in mind when preparing and submitting any application. It should be read alongside the following Practice Notes: Search and imaging orders—guiding principles Search and imaging orders—making an application The model search and imaging order Search and imaging orders—execution of the order and next steps For guidance on dealing with an application for an imaging order, see: Responding to an imaging order—checklist. 6 April 2025 changes With effect from 6 April 2025, the CPR provisions governing interim injunctive relief, including search and imaging orders, were updated. In particular, CPR 25 underwent substantial revision and the related Practice Directions—covering the standard draft search order and the imaging order form (previously in Annex A and Annex B to Practice Direction 25A)—were withdrawn. In their place, a new model search and imaging order took effect on 6 April 2025 (the...

Search orders Formerly known as Anton Piller orders, search orders are frequently made in conjunction with a freezing order and permit an applicant to attend at the respondent’s premises to search for and safeguard evidence that might otherwise be disposed of, concealed, or destroyed. The order may only be served by a supervising solicitor and is subject to very strict requirements as set out in the Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), SI 2010/2955. The adoption of Anton Piller relief, now codified within FPR 2010 as search orders, gained prominence in family proceedings through two authorities on disclosure and self‑help (L v L and Tchenguiz v Imerman; Imerman v Imerman). The courts have issued a firm caution against self‑help in preference to pursuing the proper court‑based remedies; see Practice Note: Procedural aspects of disclosure in financial proceedings—Disclosure of documents belonging to the other party. Great care should be exercised when drafting the terms of the order. A standard form search order has been produced—see Precedent: Standard order 3.2—search order—family...

This Checklist outlines the principal considerations that respondents must address when replying to an imaging order. It should be read alongside the following Practice Notes: Search and imaging orders—guiding principles Search and imaging orders—making an application The model search and imaging order Search and imaging orders—execution of the order and next steps For guidance from the viewpoint of an applicant seeking an imaging order, see: Applying for an imaging order—checklist. 6 April 2025 changes With effect from 6 April 2025, the CPR provisions governing interim injunctive relief, including search and imaging orders, were amended. In particular, CPR 25 was extensively overhauled and the associated Practice Directions—covering the standard draft search order and the imaging order form (previously in Annex A and Annex B to Practice Direction 25A)—were revoked. In their place, a new model search and imaging order came into force on 6 April 2025 (the ‘model search and imaging order’)...

Overriding principles The DMCC’s core requirement is that a product’s “total price” must be shown prominently in every invitation to purchase (ITP). (For what constitutes an ITP, see here.) The total price covers all amounts the consumer will inevitably pay, which therefore includes any compulsory delivery charges. There is a limited DMCC exception. Where, owing to the nature of the product, a compulsory delivery charge cannot reasonably be worked out in advance, every ITP must explain how that charge will be calculated. This explanation must appear with the same prominence as the total price and must enable the consumer to determine the overall cost. Typically, equal prominence means placing this information beside or immediately below the total price. Before relying on this carve‑out, traders should be satisfied that the compulsory delivery charge genuinely cannot be calculated beforehand. The CMA has indicated that the exception will be applied narrowly...

Amazon's move mirrors one by Google Google has likewise allowed its users to opt out of the automatic merging of data across its platforms, including online search, YouTube’s video-streaming service, and the Play Store. Following a weekend app update, Amazon let customers choose to ‘personalise’ its service, explaining that permitting data combination would ‘improve your Amazon experience including by using your browsing and order history along with other personal information about your use of Stores to make better recommendations across other Amazon services’. The change brings both companies closer in how they handle cross-service data policies...

In this issue: UK, EU and international Regulators and bodies Financial crime and sanctions Complaints, compensation and claims management Investigations, enforcement and discipline Dispute resolution for financial services lawyers Regulation of derivatives Banks and Mutuals Consumer credit, mortgage and home finance Regulation of insurance Payment systems and services Fintech and cryptoassets AI in financial services Financial Services Enforcement Database Daily and weekly news alerts Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary UK, EU and international Regulators and bodies House of Lords confirms the Financial Services Regulation Committee and restarts its inquiries Following the State Opening of Parliament on Wednesday 17 July 2024, the House of Lords reappointed the Financial Services Regulation Committee on Monday 29 July 2024. See: LNB News 05/08/2024 60. Financial crime and sanctions NCA and UKFIU issue SARs Reporter Booklet August 2024 The National...

This Practice Note sets out how to seek an order to retain items taken during a search, under section 59(5) of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 (CJPA 2001) and the Criminal Procedure Rules 2025 (CrimPR 2025), SI 2025/909, and the grounds for bringing such an application. It also outlines how an opposing party may contest the application and resist the order. For guidance on lawful seizure routes—whether under warrant, under PACE 1984 and CJPA 2001, or with the owner’s consent—and on the procedure for seeking a warrant, see Practice Notes: Seizure and retention of property and Obtaining and executing a search warrant under PACE 1984. For material on search and seizure warrants under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA 2002), consult Practice Note: Search and seizure warrants under section 352 of POCA 2002. When can an application to retain seized property be made? A request for an order permitting retention of seized property—taken in purported exercise of a relevant seizure power (eg under a...

Following a series of court decisions and influential commentary, it is now widely accepted that, under English law, cryptoassets are neither things in possession nor things in action; instead, they comprise a distinct third form of property as data objects. The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA 2002) establishes, in broad terms, two routes for the realisation of criminal proceeds: a conviction-based restraint and confiscation regime under POCA 2002, Pt 2, criminal in character and largely managed by the criminal courts under the Criminal Procedure Rules 2025 (CrimPR 2025), SI 2025/909; and a non-conviction based asset recovery regime under POCA 2002, Pt 5, operating within the civil jurisdiction. In England and Wales, at a high level, this results in: proceedings before the magistrates’ court, in its civil jurisdiction, for the freezing and forfeiture of (i) cash, (ii) high value personal property, and (iii) money in accounts held with financial institutions (FIs); and proceedings before the High Court for a...

Practice Note This Practice Note consists of two strands created to help dispute resolution practitioners remain up to date with developments in case law that affect their field, or which influence civil litigation procedure more generally: selected forthcoming appeals to the Supreme Court are highlighted below; see Key forthcoming appeals to the Supreme Court—2022 summaries of significant appeal decisions in England and Wales (ie rulings of the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court and, where appropriate, certain judgments of the Competition Appeal Tribunal, Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, Court of Justice of the European Union), and ECtHR, which we have covered; see: Key forthcoming appeal cases—2022 You can navigate this content using the table of contents in the left-hand margin. Alternatively, search this tracker using [CTRL]+[F]. This material is not intended to be a comprehensive register of every appeal or major decision relevant to dispute resolution practitioners. Key forthcoming appeals to the Supreme Court—2022 Tort and negligence ...

ARCHIVED: This Precedent is archived. It derives from a draft imaging order that was appended to Practice Direction 25A. That practice direction, together with its annexes, was withdrawn with effect from 6 April 2025, and the draft imaging order was superseded by a model search and imaging order. For further guidance, refer to Practice Note: The model search and imaging order (from 6 April 2025). Claim No....

Claim No. [ enter claim number ]...

ARCHIVED: This Precedent is now formally archived. It derives from a draft search order formerly appended to Practice Direction 25A. That practice direction, together with its appendices, was revoked with effect from 6 April 2025, and the draft search order was superseded by a model search and imaging order. For guidance, please consult Practice Note: The model search and imaging order (from 6 April 2025). Claim No....

CPR 31.10 contains provisions for the disclosure of documents by way of a list. Obligations to disclose continue until the case is concluded. If additional documents are discovered after a list has been served, a supplementary list must be provided (CPR PD 31A, para 3.3). For broader guidance on disclosure, see Practice Notes: Disclosure under CPR 31—introduction and Disclosure—standard disclosure and the reasonable search. When issuing directions, the court will fix the deadline by which the list must be served on the other party. CPR 31.21: a party cannot rely on a document it has not disclosed unless the court grants permission. CPR 32.10 (witness statements) and CPR 35.13 (experts’ reports) are framed so that, upon default, court permission is required to adduce or rely on that evidence. This points to an application for permission, rather than an application for relief from sanctions, being the more suitable course where these kinds of breaches arise...