The rule of practice requiring fresh evidence or changed circumstances for renewed interlocutory applications is not settled as applying to Mareva injunctions and other asset preservation orders, which are incidental steps in proceedings rather than applications designed to finalise litigation. Where the failure to adduce available evidence at the first hearing results from professional oversight rather than deliberate strategy, and the nature of the application is protective rather than dispositive, the court retains discretion to permit a renewed application. However, this discretion will be exercised cautiously, and the court will weigh the risk of conflicting decisions, unnecessary vexation of respondents, judge-shopping, and harm to public confidence in judicial decisions.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 10 later cases that cite this judgment.
3 of the 10 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.