Gideon Clare Forrest

The appellants appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

On consent of both parties, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal without costs.

The appellants appealed an order of the motion judge regarding an oppression motion and a bank's application.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge erred by failing to address the issues and arguments he was required to decide, including the factors regarding the oppression remedy and whether the bank had valid security in priority to a judgment creditor claim.

The order was set aside and the issues were returned to the Commercial List for determination.

The court issued an endorsement to settle the terms of its orders following an appeal.

The court determined that interest on costs should run from September 29, 2004, the date the costs order was made, rather than the date of the main judgment.

The court declined to alter the trial judge's order regarding carriage of the reference, noting it was not argued and should not be modified absent agreement or if affected by the appeal reasons.

The court also declined to cross-reference the orders in the two separate actions, noting the agreement that there can be no double recovery.

The appellants appealed an order of Farley J. made pursuant to Rule 60.12(c).

The Court of Appeal quashed the appeal, finding that the order was interlocutory and did not finally dispose of the issues.

Consequently, the appeal lies, with leave, to the Divisional Court.

Costs were fixed at $2,000.