Safeguarding search orders and the role of public interest: lessons to be learned from recent case law
Search orders are one of, if not the most, draconian orders the courts can make. The recent decision in Calor Gas Ltd v Chorley Bottle Gas Ltd and others (Calor Gas) contains two points of particular significance:
- The extent to which questions of public interest, and in particular public safety, may be factored into the court’s decision.
- How giving careful consideration to making execution of a search order “COVID-secure” will assist the applicant’s cause when the court is weighing up the proportionality of the order.
The safeguarding measures taken by the applicant also stand in stark contrast to the failings observed in this respect by the Court of Appeal in another recent judgment, TBD (Owen Holland) Ltd v Simons and others (TBD).
The claimant supplied branded liquid cylinders of gas to retailers, who in turn supplied their customers with these full liquid gas cylinders. The cylinders were labelled “property of and to be filled only by” the claimant. The cylinders were supplied by the claimant full and returned to it empty by the retailers, who collected empties from their customers.
The claimant’s proposed claim was that, in breach of various duties owed to it, the defendants had been undertaking a DIY re-filling exercise, in which the claimant’s cylinders had been refilled using bulk tanks containing liquid gas delivered by third parties and using equipment not belonging to the claimant to do so (“the equipment”).
The claimant applied, without notice, for a search order to enable identification and retrieval of its cylinders, and the examination and photographing or videoing of the equipment. In its application, the claimant made clear its concerns about the health and safety implications associated with DIY filling and more broadly about public safety in relation to cylinders which had been refilled.
An application for a without notice search order attracts the following five-component approach, as set out by the High Court in BMW AG v Premier Alloy Wheels (UK) Limited and others:
- There must be a strong prima facie case of a civil cause of action. Neither suspicion nor the existence of a serious question to be tried is sufficient.
- The danger to the applicant to be avoided by the grant of the order must be serious, and, if the order is to forestall the destruction of evidence, the evidence must be of major importance.
- There must be clear evidence that the respondent has incriminating documents or articles in its possession.
- There must be a real possibility of the destruction or removal of evidence.
- The harm likely to be caused by the execution of the order on the respondent and its business affairs must not be out of proportion to the legitimate object of that order.
Fordham J decided in favour of the claimant on each of the five criteria and granted the application.
In particular, he took account of the submission that the public safety implications (viewed through the prism of commercial and reputational harm to the claimant) amply constituted serious harm to the claimant, which was only to be avoided by the grant of the order sought. The judge observed that he was not aware of any authority precluding reliance on this wider perspective and he was satisfied that there was a clear and cogent link to the reputational position of the claimant within the regulatory world in which it operated. He stated that:
“the court can properly be asked to have regard to public health and safety risks, in considering the claimant’s position: linked to the cause of action; linked to the implications of not making the order; and the risks as to evidence and as to property.”
In TBD, the Court of Appeal held that insufficient safeguards had been provided for in the search order, in particular in the context of the imaging of large quantities of data. This resulted in what the court held to be the applicant’s impermissible searching and use of the data retrieved, including data likely covered by legal professional privilege and potentially raising privacy issues.
By contrast, in Calor Gas, Fordham J found that the order had been sufficiently restricted by the claimant. He noted:
“The order sought and made involves no entry into any residential premises […] The search pursuant to the order is for the claimant’s own property, and is a search to examine and photograph but not to remove the bulk tanks and other equipment. The only items being removed are the claimant’s own property […] There is no searching, less still removal, of any documentation or of computers. Nor […] is there any ‘doorstep’ requirement that questions be answered as to commercial dealings undertaken by the defendants: the only requirement for information during the search relates to identification as to where relevant items covered by the order are to be found.”
The decision in Calor Gas underlines the importance of giving careful thought to the parameters of the search, which in turn increases the prospects of success with the application. The applicant had taken a deliberately restrictive approach to the scope of the search order in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. This assisted the court when it came to evaluating the proportionality of the order sought.
The decision also provides examples of appropriate safety measures that can be incorporated into an order. Here, the order sought contained “COVID undertakings” which required the supervising solicitor:
- Not to permit any person in the search party to enter the premises without undergoing a temperature test and not to permit anyone with a temperature above 38 degrees celsius to enter the premises.
- Before allowing any member of the search party to enter the premises, to inquire whether anyone on the premises was clinically vulnerable to COVID-19 or was otherwise shielding. If so, the supervising solicitor was required to stop the search to allow them to leave the premises.
- Use best endeavours to comply with social distancing, wherever practicable, and to ensure that every member of the search party wore plastic gloves and facemasks at all times when on the premises.
- To ensure that every member of the search party had hand sanitising gel and carried it at all times on the premises, before, during and after the search.
- To bring spare plastics gloves and facemasks and offer them to the defendants and any other person at the premises.
This article was first published on Practical Law.
Phone hacking: Charles Russell Speechlys achieves settlement for three celebrity clients from News Group Newspapers
The claims were brought against News Group Newspapers publisher of The Sun and the News of the World, which ceased publication in 2011.
Ghassan El Daye
Ghassan El Daye quoted by Gulf Today and Al Khaleej on the firm successfully opposing an extradition request in complex litigation with Bulgarian Authorities
An extradition request against Vasil Krumov Bozhkov, was rejected by UAE authorities.
Rachel Warren writes for People Management on how businesses should deal with sexual misconduct allegations
Rachel Warren outlines the pitfalls for unwary employers dealing with workplace sexual harassment claims.
The art of alternative investment scams
Tim and Jil look at the risks of investing in art
Obtaining documents in the US for proceedings in the UK
Stewart and Simon look at the three potential routes for obtaining documents from third parties located in the US
Banking on Banks - appeal judgment gives some clarity regarding the challenge to will validity
Property Patter: the basics of settlement offers
Settlement offers are often a sensible route for trying to settle disputes.
Stewart Hey and Simon Heatley write for ThoughtLeaders4 FIRE on obtaining documents in the US for proceedings in England
In KBR, Inc, R v Director of the Serious Fraud Office, the Supreme Court limited the extraterritorial effects of the SFO's powers.
The Lawyer feature the Art and Luxury Assets team's appeal on behalf of Bernard Carl in the Court of Appeal as part of its 'In court this week’
Tim Maxwell and the Art and Luxury Assets team are acting in the Court of Appeal on behalf of Bernard Carl.
Absent parents: when will the Family Court remove parental responsibility?
Danish tax authority loses "cum-ex" case: revenue rule reigns supreme
Hugh and Guy look at the recent decision in Skatteforvaltningen v Solo Capital Partners LLP (in special liquidation) and others
No “New Look” in the latest landlord challenge to a tenant CVA
Daniel and Hannah look at the impact of the recent New Look CVA judgment
Noel Wardle quoted by Chemist and Druggist on how to make hub-and-spoke work for all independent pharmacies
Noel considers whether patients would be for or against their prescription being assembled at a hub, rather than a pharmacy.
Noel Wardle writes for Pharmacy Business on the balancing act of medicine supply
Do community pharmacies have to provide medicines in compliance aids, and can they charge for the service?
The Lawyer, New Law Journal, International Adviser, CDR Magazine and eprivateclient report on the firm's partner promotions
Charles Russell Speechlys promoted five lawyers to partner, effective 1 May 2021.
Recent Trends In Firewall Legislation: BVI, Bermuda And Gibraltar
Charles Russell Speechlys promotes five to Partner
The promotions are effective 1 May 2021 and are accompanied by one Legal Director and 15 Senior Associate promotions.
ICC 2021 Rules
The ICC has recently updated its rules for arbitration: the new rules entered into force on 1 January 2021 (the “2021 Rules”).
The Lugano convention – the journey continues
The UK’s departure from the European Union has had the effect of leaving the UK outside of the Lugano Convention of 2007.
Adding claimants pre-service and amending outside the limitation period: pitfalls for the unwary
Sonia looks at a recent High Court judgment and its important guidance on the ability of claimants to be added to a claim before service