Distinctive FX 9 Pty Ltd v Statewide Developments Pty Ltd

In *Distinctive FX 9 Pty Ltd v Statewide Developments Pty Ltd*, the applicant sought security for costs against the respondent. The respondent company had been wound up in insolvency.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether leave of the Court was required to commence appeal proceedings when the respondent company was in liquidation. This question arose because the applicant had not sought such leave.

The Court determined that an appeal constitutes a new proceeding. Consequently, under section 471B of the *Corporations Act 2001* (Cth), leave of the Court was required to commence the appeal proceedings given the respondent's liquidation. As no application for leave to proceed had been made, the Court lacked the power to deal with the application for security for costs.

The Court ordered that the proceedings in *Distinctive FX 9 Pty Limited v Statewide Developments Pty Limited (In Liquidation)* CA 2012/210989 be stayed.