Held, application refused. If administration was more costly than liquidation, then that would amount to there being unnecessary harm to the creditors of the company as a whole for the purposes of paragraph 3(4)(b) of Schedule B1 to the Act, so that an administrator would not be able to perform his functions, nor to achieve his objective under the Act and, therefore, there would be no jurisdiction to make the order. However, the test could not simply be whether administration was more costly than liquidation, although that would be a very powerful factor in looking to see whether there was unnecessary harm to the interests of the creditors of the company as a whole. The court also had to take account of potential benefits in administration as opposed to liquidation. An assessment had to be made as to whether, in circumstances where administration was more costly than liquidation, those benefits outweigh the additional cost. If there were benefits in administration which outweighed the additional cost of a liquidation, then in those circumstances the additional cost would not be an unnecessary harm; it would be a potential harm. Administration was likely to be more expensive than liquidation in the particular circumstances of the company and in the light of what was likely to happen in terms of appointment of a liquidator and the approach to be taken. The benefit in administration as opposed to liquidation was marginal at best and that potential benefit did not outweigh the potential harm of the additional expense (paras 29, 30, 31, 43, 44).