Injunction – Freezing order. A claim was brought by the administrators of the claimant company against various defendants, alleging that assets belonging to an associated company had been transferred to other companies without any consideration having been paid. Freezing orders were granted ex-parte on the application of the administrators and, on the return date of the application, the defendants contended that the injunctions should be discharged because the court had allegedly been misled. Due to lack of court time, the defendants agreed to enter into undertakings. The matter was re-listed and later sent back to the judge who had made the ex-parte injunctions, given the defendants' allegations. The Chancery Division discharged the undertaking where they had been granted on erroneous facts and under the erroneous impression that the draft orders, presented at the ex parte hearing, had been in the standard form and where the draft orders had not been drafted by counsel in the case.