BL-2021-002235 - [2025] EWHC 1966 (Ch)

Secondly, the respondent makes the allegation that the order was obtained by the false evidence by an officer of the applicant. But the difficulty for the respondent is that the order of 5 April 2022 has never been appealed, let alone overturned on appeal, and has never been set aside on any application for that purpose based on the alleged fraud. In these circumstances, I am not able to go behind that order. More than that, the injunction is one granted by a court of competent jurisdiction, and so, unless and until it is overturned or set aside, or at least varied in a material way, the respondent is obliged to obey it: see Chuck v Cremer (1846) 1 Coop t Cott 338, 342-343; Isaacs v Robertson [1985] AC 97, at 101-102; M v Home Office [1994] 1 AC 377, 423; R v Kirby (John Martin) [2019] 4 WLR 131, [13]; R (Majera) v Home Secretary [2022] AC 461, [56]. Even if it were subsequently overturned or set aside, it would still be a contempt of court to have disobeyed it in the meantime.