Ratul v Islam (No 2)

The interlocutory application before the court was brought by the defendant, seeking an order to restrain the second plaintiff from making any payment to a contractor, as well as an order for the second plaintiff to commence payment of a Director’s allowance to the defendant, and for the recommencement of payment of 50% of the trail income from a third party to the defendant. The court was required to determine whether the defendant had established a serious question to be tried, which would warrant the making of such orders. The legal issues included the validity of the defendant's claim that the second plaintiff was not entitled to make the proposed payments, and whether the defendant was entitled to the allowances sought. The court examined the evidence and arguments presented by both parties, considering the merits of the case and the likelihood of the defendant succeeding at trial. After careful consideration, the court determined that the defendant had not established a serious question to be tried in its entirety, and therefore refused the orders in the terms sought. However, the court made limited orders in relation to the notice and types of payment to be made to the contractor. Additionally, the court ordered that the costs of the first plaintiffs' successful injunction applications be paid by the defendant.