Interlocutory relief refused where court was ‘seriously and deliberately’ misled at ex parte stage

Plaintiffs seeking injunction - to restrain the defendants from selling, disposing of, transferring or otherwise dealing with the lands - claim by personal representative against estate - settlement agreement - which provided for sale of the lands - two thirds of net proceeds of sale to deceaseds estate - one third to first plaintiff’s estate - nephew of deceased repeatedly requested and demanded that lands be sold privately - third defendant decided on public sale of lands - defendants inform court of campaign by nephew to obstruct and prevent sale of lands - legal action was threatened - court very critical of mother and next friend of children plaintiffs - court very critical of an ex parte injunction brought to prevent auction of property - court finds that trial judge was deliberately misled - court very critical of conduct of plaintiffs - profound material non disclosure - court notes it was very disturbing - court finds plaintiffs have misunderstood the legal effects of the settlement agreement - court concludes the plaintiffs have not made out a serious issue to be tried - that the motivation for bringing these proceedings were wrongheaded - that interlocutory orders sought would frustrate the implementation of a court approved settlement - that plaintiffs should not be entitled to further equitable relief at the interlocutory stage - that application for interlocutory relief should be refused - finally court strikes out the proceedings against the second defendant as bound to fail and an abuse of process.