The defendants sought leave to appeal two interlocutory orders compelling their witness to answer questions refused on cross-examination and refusing to vary the initial order.
The court found that the first category of questions was moot because the witness had already answered them without condition.
The court also held that the defendants failed to satisfy the test for leave to appeal under Rule 62.02(4) for both categories of questions, as there were no conflicting decisions and the issues were not of such importance to warrant leave.
The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed.
