The practice direction issued by the Lord Chief Justice in July 1994 has breathed new life into what was fast becoming a dying institution.

The Anton Piller order has undoubtedly come a long way since it was first introduced in the early 1970s.

The procedure was to become the subject of serious abuse and had it not been for the constructive suggestions of the Vice-Chancellor in 1992 (in part inspired by Professor Dockray and Hugh Laddie QC's article 'Piller problems' (1990) 106 LQR 601) and the practice direction of last year, these orders may well not have survived outside the largest cases for very much longer.However, it should not be forgotten that it took more than ten years for the Anton Piller order to become subject to serious review and indeed stinging criticism before and by Mr Justice Scott in Columbia Picture Industries Inc v Robinson [1986] 3 All ER 338.

When the Court of Appeal first sanctioned the use of these orders (in Anton Piller KG v Manufacturing Processes Ltd [1976] 1 All ER 779) Lord Denning said that they were to be used 'only in an extreme case where there is grave danger of property being smuggled away or of vital evidence being destroyed'.A decade or so later the senior partner of the plaintiffs' solicitors in Columbia Pictures estimated that his firm had by then executed no fewer than 300 Anton Piller orders! The abuse of the procedure that must surely have taken place in the previous 11 years hardly bears thinking about.

Yet despite the critical judgment of Mr Justice Scott in 1985, the abuse, as we know, continued until it reached perhaps its nadir in Universal Thermosensors Ltd v Hibbern [1992] 3 All ER 257.

This was the case in which an Anton Piller order was executed at one of the defendant's houses at 7.15am, she being present only with her small children and with no practical opportunity of obtaining immediate legal advice.The fact that the judiciary has now grasped the bull by the horns and produced the standard Anton Piller order issued last year is very much to be welcomed.

The plain English in which it is written is of great help to those who have to explain its terms when they come to be served.

The notice at the beginning, giving a succinct summary of the order's effect which is then followed immediately by the operative parts, rather than, as was previously the case, a few pages of (to the l ayman) turgid recitation of various undertakings given to the court by the plaintiffs, is itself a substantial stride forward.The order also specifically addresses some of the quandaries that inevitably arise upon service and execution.

For example, difficulties can often arise immediately upon service of these orders when the defendant asks the plaintiffs' solicitors to absent themselves from the premises whilst legal advice is taken.

Whether or not this would constitute contempt of court on the part of the defendant was always something of a grey area, albeit one that was clarified by Scott J in Bhimji v Chatwani [1991] All ER 705.The position has now been clarified in the terms of the order itself which provides for the defendant to allow entry by the supervising solicitor and the plaintiff's solicitor whilst legal advice is taken and that the search cannot then take place for a short time not to exceed two hours, unless the supervising solicitor agrees a longer period.The very fact that there is now a standard form of order which, in the words of the Lord Chief Justice's practice direction, 'should be used save to the extent that the judge hearing a particular application considers there is a good reason for adopting a different form' is itself a substantial safeguard.

The old system, which relied on the plaintiffs' solicitors and/or counsel to prepare a draft order for the judge to approve, was inevitably vulnerable to the fact that by the time the judge had decided in principle to grant the order, and with time being very much of the essence in this type of scenario, each and every word of the draft did not always fall to be examined by the judge in a way such as to ensure the interests of the (absent) defendant were fully protected.However, it was generally feared after Universal Thermosensors that the additional safeguards proposed by the Vice Chancellor, including in particular the introduction of the independent supervising solicitor to serve and oversee the execution of the Anton Piller order, would so increase the costs of the procedure, and render it so cumbersome, that save for the largest cases the relief was likely to become a thing of the past.

Happily for the long term survival of the Anton Piller order, this is far from the case.

Plaintiffs' solicitors are becoming increasingly used to the involvement of supervising solicitors and as a result the procedure is, one suspects, creating considerably less angst than had been feared.In London, for example, the London Solicitors Litigation Association, with encouragement from the Law Society, has set up a register of solicitors willing to act as supervisors.

In other parts of the country, some local law societies have been compiling their own register (see below).

As a result, plaintiffs' solicitors now have ready access to a large number of solicitors willing to act in that capacity.

This has undoubtedly assisted plaintiffs' solicitors in obtaining and executing these orders, and has overcome some of the practical difficulties that might otherwise have rendered the procedure more cumbersome and, one suspects, expensive.Nonetheless, the new Anton Piller regime certainly requires further refinement.

There is still room for abuse, not necessarily by the plaintiffs, but also by defendants.

For example, plaintiffs' solicitors have always feared that the taking of legal advice has afforded the defendant ample and tempting opportunities to advise others of the execution of the order.

Of course, this would constitute a clear and flagrant contempt of court, but it wa s not always easy to prove.The introduction of the supervising solicitor may now provide the answer.

Once the courts have become comfortable with the role and independence of the supervising solicitor the standard order could be varied to provide that legal advice be taken by the defendants upon whom the order is served, in the presence of the supervising solicitor.

In this way, the court and the plaintiffs' solicitors can be sure the legal advice proviso is not being misused by the defendants.There are other problems.

The standard order provides that 'it may only be served between 9.30am and 5.30pm on a weekday' and that 'the defendant must allow [those persons who are serving the order] to remain on the premises until the search is complete, and if necessary to re-enter the premises on the same or the following day in order to complete the search'.

There is currently some uncertainty as to whether these provisions therefore specifically prohibit the continued execution of the order past 5.30pm.

To save any further scope for uncertainty and variation in practice, it is submitted that the standard order should simply be varied to confirm the position one way or the other.Past experience has taught us that to await review by the courts will simply be too long-winded a process to refine the operation of the Anton Piller order.

Having begun the consultation process, the Lord Chief Justice should now allow this to set a precedent.

A further review should be conducted in the near future, once practitioners have gained experience of the operation of the new standard order, so that difficulties can be ironed out very much sooner than might otherwise be the case.-- SUPERVISING SOLICITORSSuzanne Burn, secretary to the Law Society's civil litigation committee adds: Last autumn I encouraged the secretaries of local law societies in several major commercial centres to establish lists of solicitors with suitable experience to supervise Anton Piller orders.

Local lists are now available from:-- London: Richard Fox, LSLA, c/o Kinglsey Napley, DX 22 London; tel 0171 814 1200-- Birmingham: Sarah Thompson, Wragge & Co, DX 13036 Birmingham; tel 0121 233 1000-- Bristol: Nigel Puddicombe, Cartwrights, DX 7851 Bristol; tel 0117 929 3601-- Plymouth: Neil Major, Pearce Major & Morrell, 10 Queen Anne Terrace, North Hill Plymouth PL4 8EL; tel 0175 266 4036-- Manchester: Fran Eccles, DX 14378 Manchester 1; tel 0161 831 7337-- Liverpool Law Society is also working on a list.

Contact Jim Rymer, Silverbeck Rymer, DX 14189 Liverpool; tel 0151 236 9594If any other local law societies consider there is sufficient demand for a list in their area, please contract Suzanne Burn at 50 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1SX; tel 0171 320 5739.