Pi v Pierce and Attorney General for NSW

The applicants, Pi and Pierce, sought leave to appeal from a summary dismissal of their interlocutory application. The Attorney-General for NSW was also a party. The precise nature of the dispute leading to the interlocutory application and its subsequent summary dismissal is not detailed in the provided text. The appeal was heard by Ward and Gleeson JJA.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the summary dismissal of the interlocutory application constituted an error, specifically whether it met the threshold for intervention on appeal, potentially akin to the test established in *House v The King*. This required the Court to consider the grounds upon which an appellate court may interfere with a lower court's interlocutory decision.

The Court of Appeal ultimately refused leave to appeal. While the specific reasoning for this refusal is not elaborated upon in the provided text, the outcome indicates that the Court was not satisfied that there was a sufficient error in the summary dismissal to warrant granting leave to appeal. Consequently, the applicants were ordered to pay the costs of the appeal.