But this is a drastic and draconian remedy. No advance notice is given to the other party, who is accordingly liable to suffer an unannounced and substantial invasion of privacy. Exactly that happened in a recent High Court case involving a search in the other party’s home, as well as at her office.

Bearing in mind our constitutional right to privacy, whilst the remedy itself is not unconstitutional, the courts require that very strict guidelines apply to its use. Thus, held the Court, the “sole purpose” of an Anton Piller is the “preservation of vitally needed evidence for use in an already identified claim” – for which reason the evidence to be seized must be both clearly specified and “centrally relevant” to the claim. Finding that in this particular case the order was too widely framed and thus amounted to “an impermissible fishing expedition”, the Court discharged the order with costs, refusing the applicant’s request that it rather be “trimmed down” to a more reasonable ambit. If it’s too wide – if it “materially” exceeds what the law permits – it has been “unlawfully obtained”, and is invalid.