The Court declined to treat as urgent an application by liquidators for a direction under s 90-15 of the Insolvency Practice Schedule that they were justified in admitting a proof of debt, where the urgency was driven by a desire to realise a capital loss before the end of the financial year. The Court held that the timing imperative was a commercial or business driver rather than a legal necessity, noting that the liquidators were not legally prevented from admitting and paying the proof of debt without the direction. The Court also observed that the prospect of any attack on the liquidators' decision involved two tiers of potentiality — the existence of a conflict and the raising of any issue about it — which did not support urgency.
The full text is available to signed-in members.