Battaglia v ING Bank (Australia) Limited

In the matter of *Battaglia v ING Bank (Australia) Limited*, the applicants sought leave to appeal an order of the primary court that had directed that their cross-claims be heard concurrently with other aspects of the proceedings. The respondent was ING Bank (Australia) Limited.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the primary court's decision to set the cross-claims down for trial at the same time as the main proceedings constituted a manifest injustice, thereby justifying the grant of leave to appeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application for leave to appeal. While the specific reasoning is not detailed in the provided text, the outcome indicates that the Court was not satisfied that a manifest injustice had been demonstrated. The Court applied the principles governing applications for leave to appeal, requiring a compelling reason to interfere with the primary judge's procedural directions.

Consequently, the summons seeking leave to appeal was dismissed, and the applicants were ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the proceedings in the Court of Appeal.