28 Nov 2023
The amended statement of claim was struck out as an abuse of process because it was prolix, largely incomprehensible, pleaded excessive evidential material and irrelevant matters, rendering it impossible for defendants to respond; the interlocutory injunction application was struck out as it had no independent life and the proceeding was brought to an end; costs reserved.
26 Oct 2023
The court was satisfied there was a serious question to be tried and that, to preserve the status quo and avoid disproportionate hardship to the applicant, electricity should be restored; respondents consented to a limited restraint on cutting utilities, so the court made interim orders by consent limited to the earlier of the applicant vacating or midnight 31 December 2023, with costs reserved and case management directions given.
22 Feb 2023
Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable error of law or fact of sufficient public importance, the materials consisted largely of unparticularised assertions lacking admissible evidential foundation, and the interests of justice did not justify further delay given the imminent substantive hearing.
1 Apr 2022
The plaintiffs' undertaking complied with Downs J's 18 October 2021 order because the undertaking must relate to the injunction reissued by Downs J and not to the earlier, discharged Brewer J injunction; the Court declined to imply an undertaking retrospectively into the Brewer J injunction and dismissed the defendants' application for retrospective relief, leaving any claim for losses to be pursued in appropriate subsequent proceedings.
21 Mar 2022
Defendants awarded costs on a scale 2B basis for the interlocutory application but indemnity and increased costs were declined because the plaintiff's conduct was not sufficiently unreasonable and the defendants did not supply supporting invoices; step 30 was excluded as its work is already covered by item 23, reducing the scale 2B award to $8,006.50, plus disbursements of $200.
23 Dec 2020
There was a serious question to be tried that the clients owned the keys and that a bailment/sub‑bailment existed, the balance of convenience and overall justice favoured restoring possession to the owners (or independent verification) to avoid irreparable harm to client security, and urgency justified proceeding without notice; accordingly an interim order was warranted directing respondent to return or make available the listed keys pending further order.
10 Sept 2020
The court granted both discovery applications because the documents sought were relevant as defined by the pleadings, there was prima facie evidence they exist and are within the defendants' control, and disclosure was proportionate; further, financial statements of Haines House Haulage Company Ltd were relevant because that company is closely connected to the plaintiffs and the identity of the employer/contracting entity was in issue.
6 Aug 2020
The court concluded that notice would cause undue delay or prejudice to the SFO, that the documents in question had been obtained under statutory secrecy and were disclosed in error, and that the SFO's undertaking as to damages justified granting a without-notice interlocutory injunction ordering Mr Ross to destroy/delete any copies of the specified documents and to refrain from referring to, using, or further disclosing them.
17 Dec 2019
The application for immediate interim orders authorising demolition or compelling respondents to pay 80% of security costs is declined: s74(7) orders presuppose a substantive decision that a scheme be made, an interim substantive judgment settling a scheme is not appropriate on the present record, and the balance of convenience favours temporary security improvements and an expedited substantive hearing rather than irreversible demolition or large temporary works.
16 Oct 2019
Plaintiff raised a serious question to be tried on the trust claim but overall justice and balance of convenience require refusal of the interlocutory injunction because preventing defendant from dealing with the shares risks immediate liquidation and destruction of company value and prejudices third-party interests, damages would likely be adequate, and specific procedural and factual factors (delay, brothers' disavowal, plaintiff's contribution to parlous finances) weigh against interim relief.