Reveal Media Ltd v Matthew Dawes

Where an urgent injunction application can be heard promptly at a short adjourned hearing, the court may adjourn it to provide the respondent with a meaningful opportunity to prepare written submissions, attend and make oral representations. In deciding the next procedural step, the court may balance urgency against procedural fairness, the need for an informed decision and the effective use of court time.

Reveal Media Ltd made an urgent application for an injunction against Matthew Dawes. The claimant sought an immediate one-hour hearing. The court instead arranged a one-hour hearing for 2 pm the following day, by which time the defendant, who was aware of the application, could file written submissions and attend with solicitors.

The defendant’s solicitors reserved their position on whether the proposed timetable would allow sufficient opportunity for fully briefed counsel and a full response. The issue before the court was the appropriate procedural course for the injunction application.

1. The injunction application was adjourned to a one-hour hearing at 2 pm on 13 February 2024.
2. The adjournment was appropriate because it would give the defendant and his solicitors an opportunity to file written submissions, attend the hearing and make oral submissions, if they wished. That course promoted an informed court and procedural fairness while allowing effective use of court time.
3. The judge was satisfied that the proposed timetable struck the appropriate balance as to the next steps, notwithstanding the defendant’s reservation of position. Any further representations on matters of substance or procedure would be considered when received.