[2025] EWHC 2648 (Comm)

Mr Jones on behalf of the Defendants accepts that the injunctions remain in place and that as a result of his clients not having taken the opportunity to seek to set them aside when given the opportunity to do so, in order to bring this application, his clients need to demonstrate a material change of circumstances as compared to the position in April 2022. Otherwise, the Discharge Application would be an abuse of process (XX v. YY [2021] EWHC 3014 (Ch)). This is in accordance with the law as explained in cases such as Chanel Ltd v FW Woolworth & Co Ltd [1981] 1 WLR 485, CA and Emailgen Systems Corpn v Exclaimer Ltd [2013] EWHC 167 (Comm). In the latter case, (albeit a case where the original order had been replaced by an undertaking until trial or further order, which is materially not different from this situation where there is an opportunity provided to challenge the original order which is not taken up) Teare J said that it was not open to the respondents to argue that the injunction ought never to have been granted, and the undertaking could therefore be discharged only for good cause. What is good cause will depend upon all the circumstances of the case, though typically a change of circumstances or the discovery of some new fact will be required (at [32]).