Decision to set aside a motion that had not been endorsed by an attorney upheld
Hurnam v Attorney General & Ors (Mauritius)  UKPC 33
This case considered whether there had been an abuse of process in setting aside a motion where it had been signed by a litigant in person not an attorney. The Privy Council held that the Supreme Court of Mauritius was right to set aside the appellant’s motion and there was no need to address its merits, including whether it amounted to an abuse of the process of the court for the purposes of the Supreme Court Rules 2000, 15(3)(b).
Aileen McColgan and Kirsten Sjøvoll were involved in this case.