The Chancery Division made an order to wind up the company. The petitioner sought an order to wind up the company under s 122(1)(g) of the Insolvency Act 1986 on the basis that it was just and equitable to wind up the company. The court held, among other things, that although the alternative grounds for seeking to wind up the company on the just and equitable ground had not been made out, the petitioner and the third respondent had made out the ground for winding up based upon loss of substratum or purpose. Further, having concluded that the petitioner had not unreasonably refused to pursue some alternative remedy, and having considered the various discretionary considerations that arose, including the allegation that the petitioner had not come to court with clean hands, the court made an order to wind up the company.