Liquidation property rights: title cannot arise from transactions made in breach of a subsisting court order.

Premises treated as security for a company in liquidation could not be shielded by a later claim of ownership where status quo and injunction orders had already restricted dealings with the property. Possession said to have been obtained after the subsisting court order did not establish a better title, and an asserted release of the premises was not proved on the record. A transaction made in breach of the court order could not confer valid title, and the applicant could not acquire a better interest than the transferor had at the relevant time. The applicant was therefore not entitled to the declaration or restraint sought, and the Official Liquidator could take possession of the entire property.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicant was entitled to a declaration of ownership and exclusive right, title and interest in the premises, and whether the Official Liquidator could be restrained from taking possession of the property.

Analysis: The premises had been treated as security in favour of the company in liquidation, and the record showed that a status quo order and later injunction orders operated against further dealing with the property. The applicant's alleged possession was said to have been obtained after the status quo order, and the asserted release of the premises was not established on the record in a manner sufficient to displace the Liquidator's claim. The Court also held that a transaction entered into in breach of the subsisting court order could not confer a valid title on the applicant, and that the applicant could not derive a better title than the transferor had at the relevant time.

Conclusion: The applicant was not entitled to the declaration or protection claimed, and the Official Liquidator was entitled to take possession of the entire property.

---