They referred to the comments of Lord Cairns in the decision of "In re Albert Life Assurance Co., The Delhi Bank's case" where he had held that upon winding-up the assets of a company become impressed by a trust, and the decision of the Court of Appeal in "In re Oriental Inland Steam Co", and in particular the comment of Mellish LJ that "[i]t appears to me that that does, in strictness, constitute a trust for the benefit of all creditors". Lord Diplock noted that the editors of "Buckley on the Companies Acts" had treated that statement as authoritative from 1897 to the present time, and that Lord Diplock was content that this was correct. His Lordship then considered arguments by the appellants that Parliament may have intended something different when they used the term "beneficial ownership" in the Finance Act, which he also dismissed. Although the decision has never subsequently been doubted, commentators were quick to point out that "trust" is not used in the strictly technical term, as none of the creditors have any specific interest in the trust property. Other commentators have noted that "[i]t has long been objected that there is no real trust of the property of a company in liquidation and 'trust' should be used only as a convenient way of describing the status of property in a liquidation, not as a categorisation with legal consequences". Subsequent cases have held that neither the company nor any other person has a beneficial interest in the assets of a company in liquidation. However, the decision has not been followed in Australia.