89 Courtenay Place Limited v Portland Wines Limited

89 Courtenay Place Limited, a creditor of Portland Wines Limited, sought a review of the registrar's decision to decline to accept for filing a liquidation proceeding that was presented for filing on 16 December 2015. The application was filed by a director of the plaintiff, Mr Gilchrist, who claimed that High Court Rules 2.11(1)(b) permitted the plaintiff to seek a review of the registrar's decision. The plaintiff's statement of claim and notice of proceeding were not signed by a solicitor, and the statement of claim did not name a solicitor acting for the plaintiff. The registrar rejected the documents on the basis that an individual is not entitled to represent and file documents on behalf of a company. The plaintiff re-filed the proceeding on 18 January 2016, again without the signature of a solicitor. The registrar rejected the re-filed proceeding on the basis that it did not comply with section 288(1) of the Companies Act 1993, as the plaintiff could not rely on failure to comply with a statutory demand as a ground supporting the liquidation application. The plaintiff sought a review of the registrar's decision.

The court was required to determine whether the registrar was correct in rejecting the documents, and whether the plaintiff had the right to seek a review of the registrar's decision. The court considered that the general rule is that a company must be represented by a solicitor at all stages of the proceeding, including the initial procedure of filing documents. The requirement for a solicitor to represent a company during legal proceedings is implicit in the High Court Rules and dates back to 1984, when it was expressed by the Court of Appeal in Re G J Mannix. The court held that the registrar was correct in rejecting the documents as they had been filed on behalf of a corporation by someone who was not a solicitor. The court also held that the purported review application was dismissed as it was not filed by a solicitor on behalf of the plaintiff.

The court held that the registrar was correct in rejecting the documents as they had been filed on behalf of a corporation by someone who was not a solicitor. The court held that the plaintiff's purported review application was dismissed as it was not filed by a solicitor on behalf of the plaintiff. The court held that if the plaintiff wished to proceed with a liquidation claim, a fresh proceeding would need to be filed by a solicitor on its behalf. The court dismissed the review application as it was not filed by a solicitor on behalf of the plaintiff.