BL-2025-001269 and BL-2024-001337 - [2025] EWHC 2706 (Ch)

I would therefore refuse the injunction sought by CIHL. I would also modify the injunction granted against Mr Protopapas so as to remove the risk of De Beers being in contempt of court if it settles and pays money, but not in the terms sought by De Beers. I need to return to the fact that these matters are essentially interlocutory even though I have given heavy weight to what I consider what the result of a trial would be if there were a trial of at least the injunction application. These applications were brought on with great urgency, and I would not wish to adopt a course which would have the effect of depriving CIHL of claims to damages if they have them and wish to pursue them. If I granted the relief sought by De Beers it might remove claims in tort based on the existence of the injunction, depending on how one analyses the torts. I do not intend to do that on this application. All I intend to do is make sure the De Beers can enter into their settlement knowing that whatever else they might be liable for, contempt remedies are not a risk. I believe that that can be done by expressing the relief in terms which remove remedies but leave the potential wrong in place. I confess that I have not had time to work this thought process through but I would hope that it can be achieved as a matter of drafting with the assistance of the experienced counsel before me. Whether or not De Beers might be said to be entitled to more than that, so that the basis of any injunction-based tort can be cut away, can be a matter of a trial if necessary. This may seem to be a bit convoluted, but decisions have to be taken now and I do not wish for my decision to decide anything beyond that which it needs to decide going to the variation of orders.