Is a liquidator justified in retaining or future distributions pending the determination of the action?

The liquidator argues that it is justified in retaining the unpaid or future distributions pending the determination of the action based on the principle enunciated in Cherry v. Boultbee (1839), 4 My. & Cr. 442, 41 E.R. 171. That principle was set out by Kekewich J. in Re Akerman, [1891] 3 Ch. 213 at p. 219, as follows: A person who owes an estate money, that is to say, who is bound to increase the general mass of the estate by a contribution of his own, cannot claim an aliquot share given to him out of that mass without first making the contribution which completes it. Nothing is in truth retained by the representative of the estate; nothing is in strict language set off; but the contributor is paid by holding in his own hand a part of the mass, which, if the mass were completed, he would receive back.