13 Dec 2006
CHURCHILL V ARAL HC AK CIV 2001-404-2302
- Citation
- openlaw-027fab3b_f103_4849_a6e9_52d9f88f6444.pdf
- Court
- High Court
The plaintiffs were held to be "not appearing" for the purposes of R 485 because following the adjudication in bankruptcy of the sole director they had no directors in office, no instructing solicitors, and counsel sought and was granted leave to withdraw, with shareholders unlikely to act; accordingly the jurisdictional requirements of R 485 were satisfied and judgment was entered for the defendants against the plaintiffs, subject to the usual availability of relief under R 486.