- No second bite of the cherry on interim applications (Mirchandani v Gheewala and Another)
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was the background?
- What did the court decide?
- Case details
Dispute Resolution analysis: The court refused to discharge freezing orders where the application was made late, relevant arguments had not been made at earlier interim hearings, and there had been no material change in circumstances. This case shows the importance of a party raising all points reasonably open to them at the first opportunity. In considering the application, the court analysed the Court of Appeal’s judgment in Chanel Ltd v FW Woolworth & Co Ltd and the Commercial Court decision in Orb arl v Ruhan. The court also considered the effect of coronavirus (COVID-19) and CPR PD 51ZA on a retrospective application to extend time. Written by Harriet Campbell, professional support lawyer, at Stephenson Harwood LLP.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial