Prior to its bankruptcy, the appellant granted a general security agreement ("GSA") to its holding body corporate and related companies as security of a $6 million advance. In the appellant's name, the receiver for the secured creditors appealed the Minister's denial of input tax credit claims of the appellant. The trustee in bankruptcy had already accepted the GSA as valid, waived redemption of the security and released the interests of the general creditors in the collateral (i.e., essentially all the appellant's assets, as the secured creditors' claim exceeded the value of the bankrupt estate), but had not specifically authorized the present proceedings.
The Minister applied to dismiss the claim on the basis of the lack of legal capacity of the receiver to bring the claim (i.e., that only the trustee could bring the claim).
Bocock J dismissed the Minister's application and found that the appeal could be brought by the appellant "by its Secured Creditors, Receivers in part and Lawful Attorneys [list secured creditors]." After finding that the deeming by ETA s. 266 of the receiver to be the appellant's agent meant that a receiver could object in respect of property seized by it, went on to indicate that the GSA, and the trustee's waiver, constituted an "assignment" of the appellant's interest in the ITCs, which empowered the Court under s. 29 of the Rules to make the creditors parties. He stated (at para. 22):
Legally, the secured creditors would be the parties exclusively entitled to the proceeds arising from any ITCs emanating from a successful appeal. ... Since entitlement to such proceeds subsists in the secured creditors through the GSA's valid assignment, section 29 [of the Rules] affords this Court the power to provide the procedural remedy to these validly, subsisting rights in the choses in action which comprise the alleged ITCs exclusively collectible from the Respondent through an appeal to this Court.