Key Points: - The Federal Court answered Question 1 in the negative, holding that retrospective sanction by the liquidator alone does not confer locus standi without court leave nunc pro tunc, and declined to answer Question 2 as it did not arise (!) . - The plaintiff company was wound up in 2015; liquidator sanctioned High Court proceedings in 2016, but notice of appeal filed on 22 December 2017 before retrospective sanction granted on 2 February 2018 effective from 21 December 2017 (!) (!) . - Court of Appeal dismissed defendants' strike-out motion, finding liquidator could grant retrospective sanction and no prejudice, distinguishing prior cases (!) - (!) . - Liquidator lacks statutory authority under Companies Act 2016 s 236/486 to grant retrospective sanction without express provision, rendering notice of appeal void ab initio (!) (!) . - Federal Court endorsed Hup Lee and Winstech, holding sanctions under s 236(2)(a) 1965 Act / s 486 2016 Act have no retrospective effect absent court leave nunc pro tunc via formal application (!) (!) (!) - (!) . - Principles require liquidator sanction for wound-up company to bring/continue actions to protect creditors; retrospective validation needs court discretion under s 236(3)/486(2) (!) (!) . - Reebok distinguished; filing notice of appeal not covered by prior High Court sanction, requires fresh sanction for appeal (!) (!) . - Appeal allowed, Court of Appeal order set aside with costs; plaintiff lacked locus standi at filing (!) (!) .

Question 1: Whether retrospective sanction from the official receiver/liquidator of a wound-up plaintiff/applicant in Court by itself can sufficiently clothe the plaintiff and/or its solicitors with locus standi to proceed with the appeal/proceeding in question without leave nunc pro tunc obtained from the Court? [p_7][p_9]

Question 2: If the answer to Question 1 is NO, whether the application for leave nunc pro tunc to the Court must be made by way of a formal application pursuant to s 486(2) of the Companies Act 2016? [p_10][p_11]