Who can interrogate the data preserved following the execution of a search & seizure order? Paul Johnson & Philip Gardner report
- The case of A v B and Hewlett Packard and others is a timely reminder of the procedural scrutiny that will follow the successful execution of a search and seizure order.
In the fight against fraud and malfeasance the English Court is often asked to grant intrusive and aggressive orders in order to assist the victims of civil wrongs to protect their interests. If, in the perhaps over-used phrase, the worldwide freezing order is the ‘nuclear weapon’ of civil litigation, then search and seizure orders (SSOs) are a more targeted and nuanced scalpel, designed to identify and preserve evidence in a defendant’s possession, that may otherwise be destroyed and make it difficult (if not impossible) for a claimant to prove their case. In recent years, given the explosion in the use of computers and e-mails, the evidence to be identified and preserved is overwhelmingly electronic
