- 15 A - principle and any restrictions established by judicial B C (4) precedent and rules of the court: [19]. B At the same time, it must be recognized that principles and C practice governing the exercise of the jurisdiction need to and D do evolve over time as circumstances change. The width and flexibility of the jurisdiction are not to be cut down by E categories. It cannot be stagnant and must be able to keep F A D E F pace with changes so as to timely respond to the emergency G of problems where the intervention of equity is called for ([19] - [22]), such as cases where equity intervenes to put H G H right defects or inadequacies in the common law ([149]); or I where it is perceived that common law remedies are inadequate to protect or enforce the claimant’s rights: [150]. J I J In line with its essential flexibility, the precise form and the K terms and conditions which may be attached to an injunction are highly flexible: [152]. L M N O P Q R S T 21. At [22], the Supreme Court summarised the developments of the jurisprudence thus: “… [they] illustrate the continuing ability of equity to innovate both in respect of orders designed to protect and enhance the administration of justice, such as freezing injunctions, Anton Piller orders, Norwich Pharmacal orders and Bankers Trust orders … and in respect of orders designed to protect substantive rights, such as internet blocking orders. That is not to undermine the importance of precedent, or to suggest that established categories of injunction are unimportant. But the developments which have taken place over the past half-century demonstrate the continuing flexibility of equitable powers, and are a reminder that injunctions may be issued in new circumstances when the principles underlying the existing law so require.” K L M N O P Q R S T U U V V