- 7 A B A 20. The learned Vice Chancellor said at p 1370 that similar B considerations apply when dealing with an Anton Piller order, a Mareva C D order and also in the case of an ordinary ex parte injunction. He emphasised that the question whether the earlier ex parte order should C D be set aside is not an urgent matter and is only relevant to the E E cross-undertaking in damages. F F 21. G In my view, what the learned Vice Chancellor said in G Dormeuil Frères is applicable here. H H 22. I J The discharge summons seeks to discharge the injunction order and the Mareva order obtained ex parte on a number of grounds including delay and the failure of the plaintiffs to make full and frank disclosure of all material facts at the time of the order. K L I J Mr Hughes, in his written and oral submissions, relied on numerous instances of what is alleged to be serious and deliberate material non-disclosure on the part of K L the plaintiffs and their legal advisers, including on the part of Mr Clark, M N who appeared for the plaintiffs on the ex parte applications. The legal advisers were also accused of deliberately misleading the court at the M N ex parte stage. O P O 23. evidence Q R It is, in my view, not appropriate to consider the voluminous at this interlocutory stage without the benefit of cross-examination on disputed facts to determine if the plaintiffs failed to make full and frank disclosure as alleged. P It seems to me that the Q R relevance of whether the ex parte injunction order and the Mareva order S T should be set aside is to determine whether the plaintiffs are liable for their cross-undertaking in damages. That is not an urgent matter. In my view, S T U U V V