If the record of a UK civil hearing identifies a party as being "in person", does that mean that the defendant was physically present or that the court had not been informed that the defendant had professional representation?
There are actually three hearings involved. In (1), a court ruled in favour of the plaintiff "in default", I believe the defendant did not attend. In (2), the ruling was vacated due to an administrative irregularity without either party's direct involvement. In (3), the plaintiff's application for the vacation to be vacated (I'm sure there's a better way of putting that...) was rejected, but despite this being primarily between the plaintiff and the court the defendant was identified as "in person".
I've had a fairly detailed explanation of what happened from the plaintiff, but I'm trying to work out what the defendant's position regarding the third hearing was.