Court of Appeal dismisses appeal and upholds a decision of the High Court granting injunctive relief to the respondent in proceedings in which the respondent claims that the appellant was interfering with the respondent in the carrying out of his receivership, and with the property the subject matter of the receivership, on the grounds that: (a) the appellant's complaint of non-compliance with the Rules of the Superior Courts in relation to the respondent's affidavit were completely without substance; (b) the trial judge identified the correct legal principles applicable to the granting of interlocutory injunctions; (c) the evidence before the trial judge was not controverted in any essential detail and clearly justified the granting of injunctive relief; and (d) the appellant did not raise the issue of alleged non-compliance with applicable legislation in the High Court and therefore could not raise it on appeal.
Appeal of a decision to grant interlocutory relief in proceedings in which the respondent claims that the appellant is interfering with the respondent in the carrying out of his receivership, and with the property the subject matter of the receivership - injunction - receivership - Order 40, Rules 6 and 9 of the Rules of the Superior Courts - whether the respondent's affidavit in the High Court complied with the Rules of the Superior Courts - whether the appellant contradicted any of the evidence put before the High Court on affidavit - whether the trial judge applied the correct principles when granting injunctive relief - whether the receiver taking possession of the property was in violation of section 97 of the Land and Conveyancing Reform Act 2009 - no evidence whatever was offered by the appellant to support allegations of perjury and fraud - no error in principle on the part of the trial judge - appeal dismissed.