Priestley JA. The court needs to say only this in regard to this application; certain matters have been put to the court as being of concern to the claimant bank in regard to matters of principle affecting the operations of banks. These matters were taken into account by Hulme J at first instance. The court does not see any error of principle in the interlocutory course adopted by the judge in the circumstances of the case.

[5]

On the material before this court no case of prejudice to the claimant bank because of the interlocutory orders made by Hulme J has been made out. This is particularly so in view of the fact that a final hearing is fixed for March in regard to the cross-claim, which has been the subject of debate here this morning.

[6]

The court is of the view that any appeal points that may emerge from these proceedings should be dealt with after that final hearing.

[7]

The court dismisses the two summonses. The ordinary course would be to order that they be dismissed with costs.

[8]

(Mr Liebling asked that the opponents" costs should be costs in the cause.)

[9]

PRIESTLEY JA: We are against you on that submission. The summonses are dismissed with costs.

Cited By (4)

Houghton v Potts & Anor.

McKinlay v Woods

The Owners - Strata Plan No 4393 v Roberts

Westpac Banking Corporation v Forum Finance Pty Limited