- 34 A B A The plaintiffs were unable to locate a physical presence of the Glamulet operations in Hong Kong. C D B Qian said that the Glamulet business is operated out of Shanghai but does not give an address in Shanghai. Qian gives an address in Shenzhen as his address when making his affirmations C D but does not say what he does in Shenzhen. As I have said, a paralegal of E Hogan Lovells’ Shanghai office attended D4’s offices on 7 December 2015 F but was unable to find any signage suggesting that any of the defendants E F was located at the addresses of D4. G H G 143. It was only in late October 2015 that the bank account of D2 H was identified as set out in the affirmation of Humphreys. The Intellect I J Test Purchases were completed in late November 2015 and the ex parte orders were applied for shortly thereafter on 10 December 2015. The I J applications were made ex parte as there was a need for secrecy to apply K K for the Mareva order. L L 144. M N Mr Clark relied on para 94 of my judgment in Pharmareg M where I said: “94. I would respectfully adopt what Eichelbaum J said in Monsanto Co v Stauffer Chemical Co at p.571: O P Q R S T N O Further, and without wishing to detract from the proposition that equitable relief needs to be sought promptly, it is not sufficient for a defendant to show that the applicant has delayed unreasonably. It must be shown that because of that delay, it would be unreasonable to grant the remedy; that it has become practically unjust to do so. As Megarry J said in: Legg v Inner London Education Authority [1972] 1 WLR 1245: What seems to me important is not so much the length of the delay per se, but whether the delay has in some ways made it unjust to grant the injunction claimed. (pp.1259–1260). P Q R S T U U V V