High Court, sitting as the Commercial Court in a directions hearing in furtherance of the plaintiff's pending motion seeking interlocutory reliefs pending the trial of the proceedings in early 2021, refuses defendant's application for the court to make no directions and to refuse to fix a date for the hearing of the plaintiff's motion, on grounds that: the defendant's contentions on affidavit as to the plaintiff's alleged motivations for bringing its motion do not meet the legal test for an 'abuse of process'; and, moreover, a party before the Commercial Court as a case managed court list is not required, when seeking directions from the court, to explain or justify why it has chosen a particular point in time to bring such a motion, and no such rule or law or authority has been referred to which would call for the plaintiff to do so.
Patent infringement - application for directions for interlocutory injunction application pending trial of action - defendant's application for the court to give no directions and fix no hearing date for the motion on grounds that the motion is an abuse of process - whether motion will disrupt parallel litigation in other jurisdictions and impede achievement of expedited directions for trial of the action in this jurisdiction - practical solutions available to deponent who need not be present in court for hearing of motion - court's powers to prevent an abuse of process - what constitutes an abuse of process - heavy onus on party asserting abuse of process - failure to explain timing of application for interlocutory relief before commercial court not in and of itself an abuse of process - Order 63A rule 5 RSC - unjust to refuse to permit motion to proceed