The plaintiffs sought a Mareva injunction against the defendants.
Before the hearing, two defendants were placed into bankruptcy by a separate creditor.
The bankrupt defendants appealed the bankruptcy orders, arguing the appeal automatically stayed the bankruptcy.
The court held that appeals from an Associate Justice's bankruptcy order lie to a Superior Court judge under s. 192(4) of the BIA, which does not trigger an automatic stay under s. 195.
Consequently, the action and Mareva injunction application were stayed against the bankrupt defendants, and a new timetable was set for the remaining defendants.
