Capilano Honey Ltd v Dowling (No 2)

In *Capilano Honey Ltd v Dowling (No 2)*, the applicants sought leave to appeal from interlocutory orders made by McCallum J, which had revoked earlier ex parte orders. The dispute concerned applications for interim and interlocutory injunctive relief, including suppression and take-down orders, in proceedings involving claims of defamation and injurious falsehood.

The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the trial judge erred in revoking the ex parte orders, particularly in relation to the requirements for demonstrating a change of circumstances before exercising discretion afresh, and whether the applicants had established a lack of procedural fairness in the court below. The court also considered the circumstances in which urgent ex parte orders should be made, the obligation of candour owed to the court, and the relevance of freedom of expression and delay in pursuing proceedings when assessing applications for injunctive relief in defamation and injurious falsehood claims.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge had not erred in revoking the ex parte orders. The court found that the applicants had not demonstrated a lack of procedural fairness, nor had they established that a change of circumstances was a prerequisite for the judge to reconsider the earlier orders. The principles applied included those governing the exercise of discretion in interlocutory matters, the requirements for obtaining ex parte relief, and the balancing of freedom of expression against the need to prevent the publication of injurious falsehoods.

The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal but dismissed the appeal, ordering the applicants to pay the respondent's costs as a litigant in person. A stay of the operation of the orders was granted for 14 days, with directions regarding the non-publication of the judgment's contents during that period.