The moving parties sought to set aside an order of a single judge of the Divisional Court, which had quashed their appeal of an interim order for payment out of court.
The single judge had quashed the appeal on the basis that the underlying order was interlocutory, requiring leave to appeal.
The Divisional Court panel dismissed the motion, finding no error of law or palpable and overriding error of fact.
The panel agreed that the underlying order, which directed an interim payment out of funds held in court pending the final determination of a shareholder dispute, did not finally dispose of the moving parties' rights and was therefore interlocutory.
