Procedure

Where receivership and freezing orders and their predecessors had been properly made when granted and applicants seeking to amend those orders were before the court, there was no question of a claimant bank in favour of which the orders had been granted having to show that the court had territorial jurisdiction to determine the issue of whether transactions relied on by applicants should be reversed or involved a collusive breach of the court’s orders. Instead, the question was simply whether it was just and appropriate to order that there be a trial of that issue.