[1][2] Even though the decision was only a first-instance ex tempore decision, it has been repeatedly upheld, including by the House of Lords in Barclays Bank Ltd v Quistclose Investments Ltd [1968] UKHL 4 On 28 July 1953 the company, Nanwa Gold Mines, Ltd., devised a scheme whereby it would reduce its capital and issue one million new shares with a par value of one shilling to generate fresh capital.

Should either of these conditions not be fulfilled, application moneys will be refunded and meanwhile will be retained in a separate account ...[3]The proposed share issuance was heavily under subscribed, and in September of 1953 the debenture holders appointed receivers.

The debenture holders issued a summons for directions as to whether the subscription monies which were received formed part of the assets of the company or were held on trust for the persons who subscribed for shares.

He also admitted, frankly, that "it occurred to [him] quite early in the argument that if the persons who sent their money on the faith of this document had no lien on the separate account there was something very wrong with the law on this subject."

They are merely examples which show that, in the absence of some special arrangement creating a trust (as was shown to exist in Re Nanwa Gold Mines Ltd.), payments of this kind are made upon the basis that they are to be included in the company's assets."