Case No. IP-2020-000140

16.Given the implications for the SJ Application of the success or failure of the Amendment Application, Counsel first made submissions on whether any or all of the proposed amendments should be permitted. By the time submissions on that aspect had concluded, there was no longer sufficient time to hear submissions on the SJ Application, notwithstanding earlier suggestions by Mr Carter that the entire hearing would take no more than half a day at most.17.As I had by that time reached a conclusion on the Amendment Application, I considered that in the interests of efficiency and of justice, I should tell the parties of my decision on that application, indicating that I would provide a reasoned Judgment in due course. For the reasons set out below, the Amendment Application was refused in respect of the pleadings related to restraint of trade, but granted for the other grounds. It was therefore not necessary to address the SJ Application.