The Court granted an interlocutory injunction restraining a liquidator from convening a creditors' meeting pending determination of an appeal against the liquidator's rejection of a proof of debt, where the rejection was based on the mistaken premise that the creditor intended to pursue its claim in separate proceedings rather than prove in the liquidation. The Court found a serious question to be tried (though marginal) given the liquidator's error, that damages were not an adequate remedy because the creditor's opportunity to vote on approval of a deed of assignment would be irretrievably lost, and that the balance of convenience favoured the injunction where no prejudice to the body of creditors or the liquidation was identified. The decision confirms that where a liquidator rejects a proof on a mistaken factual basis and a creditors' meeting is imminent, the court may intervene to preserve the creditor's substantive right to vote pending a de novo appeal.
The full text is available to signed-in members.