- 35 A A And see Lindsay Petroleum Co v Hurd (1874) LR 5 PC 221, p.240 and Spry, Equitable Remedies (2nd ed), pp.405, 454–455.” B C D B C 145. I was also referred to Re Wako Giken (HK) Co Ltd [2010] 4 D HKLRD 121 where Harris J at para 24 also relied on the approach of E E Eichelbaum J in Monsanto. F F 146. G H I am of the view that the delay complained of does not disentitle the plaintiffs to interlocutory relief on the facts of this case. The defendants must have known that the plaintiffs were pursuing their complaints of infringements seriously. I J H Mathew responded to the complaints on behalf of the Glamulet business and appeared to be co-operative. G However, although some infringements were removed, I J some re-appeared on the websites and new infringements also were found K L on the websites. The plaintiffs were unable to locate a physical presence of the Glamulet operations in Hong Kong. It was only in late K L October 2015 that a bank account of D2 was identified and shortly after M N that the applications were made ex parte to maintain secrecy for the Mareva order. In my view, the plaintiffs should not be refused M N interlocutory relief on the ground of delay. O P Q O Conclusion 147. P In the exercise of my discretion I make an order granting to Q the plaintiffs a continuation of the injunction order as continued by R S L Chan J and as varied by Mr Recorder Whitehead until trial or further order save that in Appendix 2 to the injunction order, the item nos 4, 5, 10 to R S 22 and 24 to 42 are to be deleted. T T U U V V