Report comment

I don't see this as much of a "game changer" at all, to be honest. Aside from providing clarity over the nature of "trivial" breaches, any judge is still at liberty to give compliance with Court orders (or lack of) greater weight over everything else.

It is still likely that the majority of "non-trivial" breaches will result in the refusal of any application for relief, whilst Dyson himself denies the role of a judge to consider any case on its merits.