Many observers feared that additional safeguards proposed by the vice-chancellor in Universal Thermos ensors v Hibben [1992] 1 WLR 840 in relation to the Anton Piller procedure might lead to the effective disappearance of the jurisdiction.

It was thought that complying with further safeguards might be unworkable and too costly.

The introduction of more safeguards and, in particular, the need for the appointment of a supervising solicitor have added to the cost but the Anton Piller order is alive and well: in fact, it is in better shape.Under Anton Piller order practice, the court 'orders' the defendant (or the person in apparent control of the premises to be searched) to allow the plaintiff's solicitors entry for the purposes of searching for and seizing strictly defined articles and/or documents to preserve evidence to support the plaintiff's case.

The order usually includes ex parte injunctions restraining further activities under complaint.

It is also usual for a Norwich Pharmacal order to be included, requiring the defendant to disclose names and addresses of parties who might also be involved in the wrongful acts under complaint.Traditionally, the courts built into these orders a number of safeguards for defendants.

The plaintiff is under a duty to make full and frank disclosure of evidence and has to give a cross-undertaking in damages.

These are, of course, standard requirements in ex parte interlocutory injunctive orders.

The plaintiff also has to show an extremely strong case given the Draconian nature of the remedy (it was described by Donaldson LJ as the 'nuclear weapon of the law').

The order has to be served by a solicitor who has undertaken to offer to explain the terms of the order in everyday language.

Until the recent recommendations, the solicitor who serves the order has been a solicitor who represents the plaintiff.

The defendant is also given a right to seek and obtain independent legal advice and it is normal for orders to stipulate providing such advice is 'sought and obtained' immediately or within one or two hours.These safeguards were established in a string of cases culminating in the decision of Scott LJ in Columbia Pictures Industries Inc v Robinson [1987] Ch 38.

However, the practice of granting Anton Piller orders with relative frequency in the 1980s inevitably led to criticism as did the manner in which (on occasion) they were being executed.

Universal Thermosensors gave the court an opportunity to redress the balance.Many of the recommendations set out in the case were already part and parcel of common practice, but the introduction of the supervising solicitor is the most fundamental change to Anton Piller practice.

The recommendation is that the order should only be served, and its execution supervised, by an independent solicitor (who is not a member of the same firm as the plaintiff's solicitors) who is familiar with the practice of Anton Piller orders.In addition, the supervising solicitor prepares a written report on the circumstances of the execution and copies of that report are sent to the parties and presented to the court at the hearing.

Another recommendation was that there should always be an inter partes hearing fixed on the ex parte application, as the common practice in the Queen's Bench Division not to have a fixed return date was considered to be potentially prejudicial to defendants.The recommendation to appoint an independent party did not provide any substantive guidance as to how the supervising solicitor might operate in practice.The following points on the execution of the order will be of assistance to a supervising solicitor.-- The realisation of the need f or the appointment of a supervising solicitor normally occurs at a relatively late stage in the preparation of evidence; ex parte applications are prepared in circumstances of extreme urgency.

When approached, the plaintiff's solicitors and the proposed supervisor should clarify a number of points at an early stage.

Inform the plaintiff's solicitors of the proposed supervisor's experience obtained in Anton Piller practice and have available a brief CV outlining such experience which can then be presented to the court.

Ensure that the proposed supervisor has a current valid practising certificate; the supervisor should make his or her availability crystal clear to the plaintiff's solicitor.-- The supervisor might also wish to check some key provisions in the order: ensure that adequate provision is made in the order that the number of persons attending the premises on the execution is increased to allow for the supervising solicitor (and, in certain circumstances, for an additional trainee or other paralegal to take a full note of the events).

The supervising solicitor cannot and should not take part in the search.

The provision for the timing of service and execution of the order should also be highlighted.

The time by which the execution of the order (ie the search) must be completed is often not clear.

It is the duty of the supervising solicitor to interpret these provisions to ensure that both parties are warned of potential breaches of the order.

The usual consequence of an unclear order is that the plaintiff's solicitor applies for an extension of time for service over the telephone from the judge who granted the order.

For obvious reasons, this is not always practicable.-- The appointment of a supervising solicitor generally makes it easier to break the ice on the initial service of the order.

A supervising solicitor has much more flexibility to offer to contact solicitors on behalf of the defendant and to explain what is happening in a way which should save time.

If the supervising solicitor is able to gain access to premises to explain the terms of the order, before any attempt by the plaintiff's representatives to make any meaningful appearance, the initial shock of being served with such an order (particularly at residential premises) can be minimised.-- A supervising solicitor can act as an immediate arbiter to give an opinion on disputes between the parties.

For example, the relevance of any particular items or documents will often be disputed and cannot normally be resolved on the search.

The supervising solicitor can give his or her opinion on the potential relevance of any document; or offer to take custody of items or documents which are in dispute for discussion at a later stage.

This will give an assurance to both parties that the documents will be preserved and ensure that the search time is kept to a minimum.

It is even better if there is specific provision in the order to allow the supervising solicitor to determine the relevance of any documents without prejudice, of course, to the right of the defendant to dispute the relevance of any particular document at the inter partes hearing (or on an application to discharge).-- There should, in any Anton Piller order, be provision for documents contained on computer media to be printed out or viewed on screen.

Where there is a considerable amount of data stored on electronic media, the supervising solicitor can offer to keep disks and diskettes in his or her custody to ensure that the parties leave the premises as quickly as possible.-- The supervising solicit or should make a note of the maximum number of representatives permitted on the premises as his or her report will have to verify that this part of the order was complied with.

Often, the plaintiff will bring along more people than necessary as a precaution.

The court will make provision for a woman to effect service on premises where there is likely to be a woman present but, even where there is no evidence that this is likely to be the case, it is prudent to include at least one female solicitor (or trainee) in the party.-- It is also prudent for the supervising solicitor to set ground rules as to how the search should be carried out.

It is advisable only to permit searches of designated areas in the presence of the supervisor and, preferably, in the presence of the defendant and his or her solicitor also.

The supervisor has a duty to report fully as to how the search was carried out and will only be able to do so if it was carried out in his or her presence.

As the search proceeds and documents or items are found they can be put to one side for review and listing on completion of the search.There have been few reported cases on how supervising solicitors have carried out their tasks.

In the recently reported case of IBM v Prima Data Ltd [1994] 1 WLR 719, in which I acted as supervisor, one of the defendants disputed whether or not he had had sufficient time in which to consider the implications of the privilege against self-incrimination which was explained at the time of service and had been taken to be waived.The court quoted extensively from the reports of both supervising solicitors and from further affidavit evidence.

In circumstances where an account of precisely what took place on the day is necessary, it is difficult to see how the court could have come to a satisfactory conclusion without the aid of an independent report.

The plaintiff's solicitors will often be too involved in the search to take time to make a full report of all that happens during a search.