The appellants appealed a motion judge's interpretation of a Defence Fee Funding Protocol, arguing they should have access to further frozen assets to pay legal costs after their bank account was depleted.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the protocol's wording specifically limited access to the bank account and did not extend to assets subject to a proprietary claim.
The respondent's cross-appeal regarding the appellants' access to $3,500 per month for living expenses from all frozen assets was also dismissed.
