150 For that reason, the mere fact that the initial advice on which the liquidators acted was incorrect in relation to the three relevant suppliers does not of itself take the expenses that the liquidators incurred in reliance on that advice outside the scope of 'properly incurred' for the purposes of s 556(1)(a). The solicitors' advice, although wrong, was not unreasonable, perverse or wrongheaded (to use the language of Re Beddoe). The PPSA was a new regime without the benefit of a developed body of explanatory case law, and when ventilated in Court, the questions of law raised took two days to argue and generated a detailed reserved judgment. While in hindsight it might be said that the liquidators' dealings with the three suppliers resulted in unnecessary costs, and that it would have been better had the solicitors advised the liquidators to delay dealing with the assets at all prior to obtaining directions of the Court, at the time that the liquidators relied on the lawyers' advice, they were confronted with claims by multiple suppliers to stock in the possession of two separate legal entities that was also the subject of potential claims by financiers, customers and another group company and stored in leased premises: a complex and high pressure situation.[130] In such circumstances, some reasonable allowance must be made for commercial realities and the exercise of professional judgement when a Court, with the benefit of hindsight, comes to assess the liquidators' decisions to determine whether the expenses consequent upon those decisions were 'properly incurred'.