Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia (Cultural Bureau) v Linda Antuan & Anor

A court may revisit an earlier order where there is a proper basis to exercise its power or discretion. A contention that a High Court judge made an error of law does not, by itself, justify a discharge application before another High Court judge; the proper route is an appeal. A party who attended and was heard on an inter partes application has no general entitlement to a second hearing on whether interim relief should continue. Compliance with some requirements does not require discharge while material obligations remain in force.

The claimant brought a High Court claim alleging that two former employees had retained confidential documents for use in their ongoing Employment Tribunal claims. Choudhury J granted interim injunctions after hearing both defendants; the approved transcript is reported at [2026] EWHC 1250.

The defendants applied to discharge or set aside the injunctions. They disputed the documents’ confidentiality and diplomatic status, argued that the Tribunal’s disclosure arrangements made the injunctions unnecessary, and alleged that the earlier order had been obtained on the basis of inaccurate or misleading material. The central issue was whether there was a proper basis to revisit the existing order.

1. The defendants’ applications to discharge or set aside the injunctions and for other relief were refused. The court had power under the Civil Procedure Rules to revisit a previous order, but there had to be a proper basis to exercise that power or discretion. The judge cited Thevarajah v Riordan and others [2015] UKSC 78 in support of that threshold.

2. The earlier injunction hearing had been inter partes, not without notice. Both defendants attended, filed skeleton arguments and were heard. Choudhury J had considered their arguments and had not directed a later hearing to reconsider whether interim relief should continue. They were not, in principle, entitled to a second hearing for that purpose. Disputes requiring evidence could be raised at trial.

3. An alleged error of law in the earlier High Court decision was not a proper basis for discharge by this court. The appropriate route was a timely application for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal. The defendants’ objections to confidentiality arrangements in the Employment Tribunal proceedings were for that Tribunal, while their complaints about employment treatment were not relevant to discharge of the High Court injunction.

4. The judge made no final findings on the alleged inaccuracies, authenticity of documents or whether the claimant had knowingly misled the earlier court. The claimant’s evidence potentially answered the defendants’ concerns, and the material before the court did not justify discharging the order. The earlier judge’s conclusion that the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961) protected the documents was a basis of that order; a challenge to that legal conclusion belonged on appeal, and its correctness was not determined afresh.

5. Delivery up and other steps had been completed, but confidentiality and preservation obligations remained in force and the claimant had not ruled out seeking final relief at trial. That compliance did not require discharge. The court also refused the other relief sought by the defendants, but ordered that any interested third party seeking access to their exhibit bundle would have an opportunity to make submissions on whether redactions were required.

1. High Court (King’s Bench Division): Choudhury J granted interim injunctions on 24 March 2026. The approved transcript is [2026] EWHC 1250.
2. High Court (King’s Bench Division): Auerbach HHJ refused the defendants’ subsequent application to discharge or set aside the injunctions and granted a limited order concerning third-party access to the defendants’ exhibit bundle.