The defendants moved to set aside a Mareva injunction granted four years prior, citing delay and new expert evidence.
The plaintiff brought a cross-motion for summary judgment or to strike the defendants' statement of defence in a complex fraud action involving a factoring company.
The court dismissed the defendants' motion, finding the delay was largely attributable to their own failure to produce documents and that the balance of convenience favoured maintaining the injunction.
The court also dismissed the plaintiff's summary judgment motion, concluding that the extensive conflicting circumstantial evidence and credibility issues required a full trial, and that partial summary judgment was inappropriate.
The motion to strike the defence was dismissed as premature.
