The Court held that advancing funds for a stated purpose does not automatically create a Quistclose trust defeating a preference claim; the court requires objective evidence of mutual intention that funds not become the borrower's property absolutely, including undertakings restricting use solely to the stated purpose and obligations to segregate funds. The case also confirms that where a prior finding of insolvency exists against the company, the s 588E(8) presumption shifts the onus to the related entity defendant to prove solvency.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 11 later cases that cite this judgment.