8 May 2020
The court granted validation orders because the petitioners produced no evidence of insolvency, the asserted risk of preference was speculative, and the petitioners' refusal to agree appeared tactical and unjustified; consequently the petitioners were ordered to pay the company's costs (party and party up to and including 19 April 2020 and on an indemnity basis thereafter).
30 May 2005
The application was dismissed because the Company was clearly insolvent and failed to provide sufficient, specific evidence that validation of the proposed payments would benefit unsecured creditors or enable the company to trade profitably; permitting the payments would likely deplete the company's cash and prefer certain creditors, which the court would not sanction.
13 Nov 1984
Court found payments did in fact prefer the bank but the dominant intention of the payer was to preserve the company as a going concern (to retain banking goodwill and recover mortgaged property to obtain alternative finance); therefore payments were not fraudulent preferences under s49(1). Additionally, payments after 27 Nov 1981 were rendered involuntary by the bank's demand and threat of legal action, reducing the amount susceptible to challenge. Consequence: plaintiff entitled to declarations that the sums were not fraudulent preferences and need not be repaid; counterclaim by Official Re…