![[2025] EWHC 2648 (Comm)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_WAai98v.png){kind=logo}
Lance Ashworth KC
Lance Ashworth KC:
Introduction
On 25 November 2021, following a without notice hearing which lasted most of the day, Jacobs J made a proprietary and freezing injunction (“the Injunction”) in favour of the Claimant (“Wenda”) against the First, Second and Third Defendants (respectively “Ms Wang”, “Syner” and “Effs” and jointly “the Defendants”). The Fourth Defendant (“Mr Petit”) was not a party to the Injunction as Jacobs J was not satisfied there was a good arguable case against him.
On 11 April 2024, Ms Wang, Syner and Effs made an application to set aside the Injunction (“the Discharge Application”). On 22 November 2024, Wenda made a responsive application for the continuation of the Injunction until trial (“the Continuation Application”). It also made an application for permission to rely on an expert report from Ms Zhong. The Defendants consented to the application in respect of the expert evidence. Accordingly, I have to consider the Discharge Application and the Continuation Application.
Wenda was represented before me by Mr Simon Milnes KC and Mr James Gardner. Ms Wang, Syner and Effs were represented by Mr Anthony Jones. I am grateful to all 3, who addressed me orally, for their written and oral submissions.
As seems not to be unusual in such cases, the bundle provided to the Court was very large, running to almost 20,000 pages in addition to which there was an authorities bundle exceeding 1,000 pages. For a two day hearing with one day of pre-reading, to include reading two substantial skeleton arguments, this was an inordinate amount of documentation. As it was, I was referred to only a very small part of these bundles.
Because of events at the oral hearing, it became necessary to allow Wenda to submit a further short witness statement following the oral hearing with both parties being allowed to make short further written submissions in respect of that witness statement which they did on 11August 2025.
The issues which arise on these applications are, in my judgment, as follows:
Is the Discharge Application an abuse of process, because the Defendants had the opportunity to seek to discharge the Injunction in early 2022 but did not pursue that opportunity?
If it would otherwise be an abuse of process, can the Defendants demonstrate good cause as to why they should be entitled to seek the discharge of the Injunction now?
If the Discharge Application can be pursued, should either or both of the proprietary and freezing injunctions be set aside because there is no longer a seriously arguable claim?
Was there a failure by Wenda to comply with its full and frank disclosure obligations when obtaining the Injunction from Jacobs J?
If there was a failure to comply with the full and frank disclosure obligations, what if any sanction should the Court impose:
Should no action be taken?
Should either of both of the proprietary and freezing injunctions be set aside?
If set aside, should either or both of the proprietary and freezing injunctions be regranted?
Should the Court impose some other sanction, such as making a costs order?
Does it remain just and convenient for the injunctions to remain in effect?