Section 295 of the Act allows a court to make a range of orders to set an insolvent transaction aside on the application of the liquidator.

"[1] Section 296(3) of the Act provides a defence to the s 295 orders:(3) A court must not order the recovery of property of a company (or its equivalent value) by a liquidator, whether under this Act, any other enactment, or in law or in equity, if the person from whom recovery is sought (A) proves that when A received the property— (a) A acted in good faith; and (b) a reasonable person in A's position would not have suspected, and A did not have reasonable grounds for suspecting, that the company was, or would become, insolvent; and (c) A gave value for the property or altered A's position in the reasonably held belief that the transfer of the property to A was valid and would not be set aside.The question before the Supreme Court was "whether the value referred to [in 296(3)(c)] must be given at or after the time of payment, or may precede it".

Justice Arnold, delivering the majority judgment held,As we have said, the Court of Appeal’s interpretation of s 296(3) does not advance the objective of providing creditors with more certainty that the transactions they enter into will not be made void but, rather, undermines it.

[3] In addition, as a Russell McVeagh publication notes, "The majority confirmed that cash on delivery or payment in advance does not give rise to voidable transaction exposure, as no repayment of debt occurs.

As was noted in one case comment,The Supreme Court's decision brings welcome certainty for those providing goods and services on credit with no security (eg sub-contractors in the construction industry).