Court of Appeal dismisses appeal from High Court, and affirms orders restraining borrowers from interfering with the exercise of a receiver of his functions concerning certain properties, on the grounds, inter alia, that: (a) the use of a comma in the name of the lending bank was a matter to be determined at trial, but was likely to be corrected if the misdescription of the bank was an error; (b) the failure of the defendants to read out an affidavit in full did not cause them prejudice where it had been read by the trial judge and they had had an opportunity to refer to any relevant parts thereof; (c) the defendants had not been able to show any prejudice for failure to obtain valuations of their properties; and (d) the use by the receiver of an alias or nickname did not invalidate his appointment, in circumstances where the borrowers knew exactly who he was.
Murray J (nem diss): Orders granted in High Court to restrain parties from interfering with receiver in the exercise of his functions over properties - appeal - cross appeal to restrain receiver from disposing of properties - 'professional landlords' - mortgages of properties - appointment of receiver - claim for possession of properties - whether receiver could be appointed under an 'alias' - whether a comma in the name of the lending bank rendered it a separate legal entity - separate court proceedings concerning certain properties - 'zero balance mortgages' - lack of company seals on deed of transfer - conduct of receiver, including threats to tenants - name of bank - ‘correction of mistakes by construction’ - conduct of the proceedings - valuations of properties - attempts to sell properties - challenge to appointment of receiver - suing under an alias.