The chambers judge in the instant case failed to recognize the second source of jurisdiction invoked in Lawson v. Bajpai, that is, his inherent jurisdiction to consider whether the appearance should be struck out as an abuse of process apart from Rule 19(24)(c) and whether to allow the judgment to stand would be a miscarriage of justice. If the appearance was entered without the appellant’s authority and if he did nothing subsequently to waive this defect or to clothe the law firm with authority to represent him, he was entitled as of right, not discretion, to have the appearance and everything that flowed from it struck out regardless of whether the action had been concluded or whether the respondent was blameless in the circumstances. Thus, the points identified by the chambers judge as distinguishing the case at hand from Lawson v. Bajpai are not valid.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.