Segal J
IN THE GRAND COURT OF THE C
that in the event that on the hearing
In the 28 September
concluded on the basis of publicly available
(g). Harneys submit that it is
(d). in particular, Harneys say
is not granted and that, given the
(b). the court should avoid turning such
"...The court is not justified in emb
purpose of the order by, for example
can be rebutted by the Company’s
of Mr Davidson. The Company’s Reply
(ii). this evidence goes directly to the
Price, makes her conclusions inherently unlikely to
(m). they accept that if cross examination
Commerce Intl. S.A. (No
provision in the CPR (CPR
made the Application for improper purposes but I
(a). he deals with the background to
does not consider that there is a real
hazard a guess as to where within
examination was limited to a narrower range