[1] This is an appeal against the decision of the High Court on 22 December 2010 regarding a preliminary issue on the priority of the appellant as creditor of the 2nd respondent (TAS) where the learned judge answered the preliminary issue in the negative to the effect that the appellant did not have any better right of priority to other unsecured creditors and that the appellant's debts must rank pari passu with the other unsecured scheme creditors.

Factual Background - Based On Agreed Facts

[2] The 2nd respondent (TAS) was a wholly owned subsidiary of the 1st respondent (TGB). TGB was in the business of air cargo transportation services, including chartering space on aircrafts owned and maintained by TAS. TAS was insolvent.

[3] In carrying out its operation, TAS entered into various funding arrangements to finance its operations involving various creditors. All the creditors were unsecured creditors.

[4] The appellant (MTB) was the trustee for the holders of med