It concerns the definition of "intention to defraud", which is found in a number of legal provisions.
It incurred another debt after a judgment that it had delivered unsatisfactory goods.
The liquidator moved for a declaration that the delivery of these unsatisfactory goods was evidence of fraudulent trading.
It also argued Sarflax had preferred other creditors over the deliveree, knowing it was unable to pay its debts in full.
Oliver J held that "intention to defraud" in the voidable preference section (now Insolvency Act 1986, section 239) did not cover a case where a debtor merely knew or had grounds to think he had no sufficient funds to pay creditors in full.