The Seventh String wrote:I'm a bit surprised the court seems to have issued an injunction without enquiring what exactly is so urgent about this matter that an injunction is required at all, never mind an ex parte one. Especially as the excluded party could have resolved the whole thing in short order by pointing out they aren't the body the plaintif shouild be going after.
I do wonder if part of the problem is that many legal (and political) decision makers don't seem to quite understand the most basic things about how this new fangled interwebby thingy works and hangs together, despite home internet access being available for around 25 years.
My point precisely! The court did wrong on both counts. There was nothing urgent, the witness statement shows no urgency whatsoever, and neither was the injuncted party in any way responsible for the issues Mr Bennison raised. Furthermore, ex parte applications should only be granted in cases where giving notice would defeat the purpose of the application, a typical example is an interim charging order, intended to stop you from disposing of the property. Nominet were not going to get rid of the domain, since they are the one and only .uk domain registry.