The defendants brought a motion to set aside a Master's Order that granted leave for the plaintiff corporation's president, a non-lawyer, to represent it in the action.
The court found it had jurisdiction to set aside the order because one defendant received inadequate notice of the original motion and new facts had arisen.
Applying the test for non-lawyer representation of a corporation, the court concluded the non-lawyer was not reasonably capable of comprehending the complex legal issues involved in the litigation, which included copyright, trademark, and defamation claims.
The court revoked the leave and ordered the plaintiff to appoint a lawyer.
