Where one party had been granted an ex parte injunction, but the other party then applied to have it discharged on the basis that the application had been made with a material nondisclosure, the following, and new guidelines should be considered by the judge when the original party then requested the continuation of the injunction. Whether or not the two applications should be held together was a matter of convenience only, and much depended on the particular case. The court should allow for the likely extent of any delay, prejudice to the defendant of continuation of the defendant in the light of the possibility of the material non-disclosure, prejudice to the claimant where the injunction might later be continued on its merits allowing for the fact that the claimant might later face prejudice from the court because of the material non-disclosure, the precise grounds of which the discharge was sought, allowing for the degree of seriousness of the allegation, the relationship of the applicants, and any substantive issues of law, and the urgency of the original application, allowing the possibility that the more urgent the case, the more excusable might be the non-disclosure.
Citations:
Times 25-Jan-2001
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Litigation Practice
Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.84260