The defendants brought a motion to vary an interlocutory injunction previously issued, seeking to reverse the ruling based on what they argued was new evidence—an alternative legal interpretation of a trust document regarding beneficiaries.
The court applied the test for admitting new evidence to vary a judgment, which requires that the evidence could not have been discovered sooner with reasonable diligence and might have altered the judgment.
The court found that an overlooked legal argument, even if conceded by previous counsel, does not constitute 'new evidence' under this test.
The motion to vary was dismissed.
The plaintiffs' cross-motion for further financial documentation and tracing of funds was also dismissed, as the existing certificates of pending litigation provided sufficient pre-judgment security and other matters were for estate administration.
