Conduct of Litigation - High Court Case - Worth a read

Grizebeck

This is an interesting judgment in the High Court which the likes of @bargepole may find worth reading
@Johnersh and @Coupon-mad may also find it good bed time reading

https://www.dropbox.com/s/bwx4o8c1gzo8gz6/FINAL JUDGMENT QB-2019-004632 Baxter v Doble and another.pdf?dl=0

This is an a case about non authorised persons dealing with litigation
The conduct of litigation is now defined.  Every point pleaded on a case is conduct of litigation either as a whole or as a stand alone action
However the court found that the practioner was not in contempt  as the defence was engaged 

So essentially consumers need to be very careful in employing non authorised firms or people in the provision of legal services

There are quite a few firms and individuals dealing with parking cases for example that may wish to take notice of the above......

bargepole

Very interesting.

Where the Respondent in that case went wrong, was in filing and serving documents on behalf of her clients.

I never do that, I may provide the suggested wording for claim forms, defences, statements etc. which clients are then free to use, adapt or ignore as they see fit. But all communication with the Court and the other side comes from them, not me.

In 6 years of doing this, I've never had any Judge suggest that I was in breach of the LSA 2007. One or two solicitor firms have tried to suggest as such, but I've soon put them back in their box.

B789

Very interesting read, especially the decision which eventually allows Mr Percy to have the original claim heard against his tenants. Obviously, the claimant, in this case, was a very tenacious lawyer who was doing everything in her power to deflect Mr Percy from having his day in court.

Coupon-mad

Very interesting, good spot!

Grizebeck

@bargepole just a clarification on some points here

Conduct of litigation as standalone acts, this is covered under Paragraphs 187 and 189 

Acts which aren’t conduct of litigation if standalone acts are covered in paragraphs 203, he Drafting of section 8 and 21 notices in paragraph 204 and serving notices Paragraph 205

However if the above are part of a package of services it will be conduct of litigation (Paragraph 208 and 211). 

Grizebeck

https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/paralegal-was-unaware-she-was-conducting-unlawful-litigation/5115386.article

Coupon-mad

What do we think about hitting roboclaims signed off by paralegals (and/or with WS signed by paralegals) with this extra point?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/79911517/#Comment_79911517

Grizebeck

Coupon-mad said:

What do we think about hitting roboclaims signed off by paralegals (and/or with WS signed by paralegals) with this extra point?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/79911517/#Comment_79911517

Worth a go

patient_dream

Coupon-mad said:

What do we think about hitting roboclaims signed off by paralegals (and/or with WS signed by paralegals) with this extra point?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/79911517/#Comment_79911517

If you are talking about copy and paste roboclaims with fakes added .... YES

Fruitcake

I agree. I believe it should also be brought to the attention of the DHLUC. If only we had a way of telling them ...

B789

@Coupon-mad with reference to this post:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/79911517/#Comment_79911517

Coupon-mad said:

Which cases are you appending in full?

Which paralegal signed the WS and which person signed the original claim?  Also a paralegal?

I am thinking you could cite Baxter v Doble & anor from the High Court this week, and state that a paralegal (not a solicitor from this 'bulk litigator debt' roboclaim firm) has knowingly carried out work, including drafting and filing a claim and drafting and signing a witness statement themselves, despite not being a party to the case.   Despite calling themselves a 'witness' the third party paralegal is also not bothering to attend the hearing to be cross-examined or to answer to the extent of their involvement in the litigation, yet they are clearly not a person who is entitled to carry out work that has amounted to the conduct of litigation for the purposes of section 12(2) of the Legal Services Act 2007. 

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/KB/2023/486.html

Does this not differ from the Baxter v Doble & Anor case in that the "firm" conducting the litigation is a law firm, irrespective of how entrenched in the gutter they are, and that paralegals under the direction of qualified lawyers are allowed to do this?

I ask the question in order to find some clarity as I am as incensed as the rest of us at the way these roboclaim litigators abuse the system. I would also like to see if there is any possibility of dragging the likes of Yasmin Mia and any other "witness" who has signed a statement of truth in the PoCs where they have added illegal or false damages and costs into court to be cross-examined on their statements.