They produced salary records and corporate bank statements and argued that the original restraint order had been obtained without the required full and frank disclosure and without satisfying the statutory tests. Three companies treated as separate corporate entitiesThe Court also addressed whether the restrained corporate assets qualified as “realisable property.” Restraint order discharged in fullJustice Gill ultimately found that the DPP had breached the duty of full and frank disclosure and that the omissions were material. The Court ruled that the appropriate remedy was to discharge the restraint order and award costs to the applicants. The final orders state that:The restraint order dated June 19, 2026 is discharged in its entirety and is of no further force or effect.