This case has the kind of business dispute small operators recognise: two companies work together, revenue keeps coming in after the relationship breaks down, and no one wants the other side controlling the cash while the accounts are being worked out. The Court had already set up a practical path using a referee, document access and a controlled-money account.
The respondent then tried to change the undertaking. It said the undertaking did not reflect instructions and that delays in the referee's report made the arrangement unfair. The Court was not persuaded. The objective correspondence pointed to the undertaking having been given, there was no direct evidence from the people said to have given different instructions, and delay in the referee process did not change the purpose of preserving the money until the dispute was resolved.
For joint ventures, the lesson is to write the accounting machinery while everyone is still friendly. If the agreement does not say who invoices, who receives money, how expenses are proved, when profit is distributed and what happens after termination, the breakup can become a fight about bank accounts before the main claim is even heard.