Key Points: - The liquidator was required by a High Court order to act with a committee of inspection, but did not appoint one. [10][33] - The court held that obedience to court orders is mandatory and that the liquidator cannot act unilaterally where a committee of inspection is mandated, affecting the validity of the sale to North Plaza. [86][95] - The sale of the lands to North Plaza was tainted due to the liquidator’s lack of compliance with the committee requirement, and the High Court order directing that the liquidator act with the COI could not be varied by the liquidator alone. [95][108] - The court affirmed that the liquidator’s powers under statutory provisions are subject to court control and to the existence and directions of the committee of inspection. [93][89] - The appeals were allowed, with costs, and the High Court decision set aside; deposits refunded. (!) (!) (!) - The proceedings emphasize that a consent order requiring the committee of inspection binds the liquidator unless otherwise set aside in direct proceedings. [106][107][108]

How to interpret the requirement of a committee of inspection in liquidation and its effect on a liquidator's power to dispose of assets?

What is the proper effect of a court order mandating a committee of inspection on subsequent liquidator actions and asset sales?

What are the limits of a liquidator's power under statute when a committee of inspection has not been appointed or is not obeyed?