15 The final matter upon which I should say something concerns a submission made by senior counsel for the plaintiffs to the effect that I ought not to make the orders as a matter of discretion because to do so would be futile. The futility was said to be in the fact that any order that may be made against the plaintiffs would not prevent another person seeking to invoke the deposition process. In that regard it was submitted that any other group member in the United States would be an interested person who could proceed to obtain the deposition orders if he or she persuaded a United States court to grant the same orders as had been obtained by the plaintiffs. The submission was made in the context of discretionary considerations and the observation in CSR Limited that the exercise of the power to grant injunctions to restrain foreign proceedings should be exercised with caution because of concerns about comity.[23] In that case the majority of the High Court held that the existence of an independent right to treble damages in the United States, not being a right available in Australia, was sufficient to take the United States proceedings outside that category of case in which the co-existence of foreign proceedings is properly to be viewed as vexatious or oppressive for the purposes of equity.[24] A conscious concern and awareness of the principles of comity may require that the exercise of caution results in a court refraining from exercising jurisdiction to issue an injunction where it might otherwise be available to be exercised. However, in this case what persuades me to exercise the jurisdiction is that the plaintiffs are purporting to use the foreign process in aid of the proceeding in this Court in circumstances where their doing so interferes with the proper preparation by the other party in the proceeding which is said to be aided by the New York proceeding. It is, therefore, the evidence of the interference with the process of this Court which justifies the cautious grant of the orders sought by NAB. I should, however, add that I do not express any view about the assumption upon which senior counsel for the plaintiffs made the submission. I am not to be taken, therefore, to accept or to reject the proposition that a person interested in the proceeding in this Court could, without sanction from this Court, institute the procedure sought by the plaintiffs in New York. Nor, of course, am I expressing any view about whether such an application would be granted or rejected by a United States judge.