Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
      On 8 December 2022, the High Court (Roberts J.) delivered a judgment in which she granted certain interlocutory orders that were sought by the Plaintiff in these proceedings and refused others (" the Injunction Judgment ").�
      On 20 December 2022, the order was made setting out the terms of the injunction granted (" the Injunction ") and fixing directions for the preparation of the Proceedings for trial (" the Directions Order ").
      The Directions Order included a direction that the Plaintiff would deliver a reply and defence to counterclaim (" the Reply ") by 2 May 2023.� The Plaintiff did not comply with that Order.� In fact, the Reply was not delivered until 3 May 2024, the day after the issue of this Motion, and 12 months after the deadline fixed by the Directions Order.
      Three reliefs are sought by the Notice of Motion issued on 2 May 2024, but the relief pursued at the hearing of the Motion was an order varying/discharging the Injunction on the basis of the failure of the Plaintiff's delay and failure to comply with the Directions Order.
      It is not in dispute that there is an inherent jurisdiction to vary or discharge an injunction previously ordered. It is also not in dispute that a party to whom an injunction is granted has an obligation to progress the substantive proceedings in a timely fashion. This is an important condition that is inherent in any order granting an injunction.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.