Witness statement signed by paralegal

LDast

Whilst CPR32 does not apply to cases in the small claims track, some aspects are still relevant. A paralegal signing a statement should still indicate their authority and role. 

It is unlikely that a witness statement signed by a paralegal without specifying their authority will be automatically disregarded. In small claims, the judge is more likely to allow the statement but attach less weight to it if the paralegal does not indicate their authority or how they obtained their information.

For example, if the paralegal simply states: "I am duly authorised to make this statement on the Claimant’s behalf." it does not explain how they are authorised. 

If the paralegal is properly authorised, they should state so... "I am a paralegal at [Name of firm, e.g. DCB Legal, acting on behalf of the Claimant in this matter. I am duly authorised to make this statement under the instructions of [solicitor’s name], the Claimant’s legal representative."

However, rushing to get your own WS in before seeing a copy of the claimants, puts you at a slight disadvantage. Another reason why you shouldn't submit your own WS until very close to the deadline.

Johnersh

Whilst CPR32 does not apply to cases in the small claims track, some aspects are still relevant. 
Arguably yes. My point was that the strict requirements under that rule will not be strictly applied in small claims. Thus, while we have helpful case law, nowt is guaranteed.
A paralegal signing a statement should still indicate their authority and role. 
As they will almost certainly have done.

It is unlikely that a witness statement signed by a paralegal without specifying their authority will be automatically disregarded. 
The authority is permission to give a statement. No further explanation is required.

In small claims, the judge is more likely to allow the statement but attach less weight to it if the paralegal does not indicate their authority or how they obtained their information.
As noted above, I suggested inviting the court to disregard (if they conclude it's useless) or else to accord it less weight. 

For example, if the paralegal simply states: "I am duly authorised to make this statement on the Claimant’s behalf." it does not explain how they are authorised. If the paralegal is properly authorised, they should state so... "I am a paralegal at [Name of firm, e.g. DCB Legal, acting on behalf of the Claimant in this matter. I am duly authorised to make this statement under the instructions of [solicitor’s name], the Claimant’s legal representative."
I doubt much turns on this. The better point is that the paralegal is expressing legal argument dressed up as fact and likely as not the material referred to is not within their personal knowledge but based on a recitation of documents that the court may as well review as primary source more reliably.

However, rushing to get your own WS in before seeing a copy of the claimants, puts you at a slight disadvantage. Another reason why you shouldn't submit your own WS until very close to the deadline.

ScammingIndustry

Thank you for all your help so far. It helps me understand this better than before.

I need an opinion on the following:

So the landowner contract states a particular place to be managed within the business park, a singular address which is a shop. Issued PCN invoice states the contravention address which is completely different to the landowner contract. Also it's about 50 metres away from the address stated in landowner contract and is not even connected. 

Surely this is a breach of contract no landowner authority. Am I correct?

Coupon-mad

It's a potentially winning point for your hearing.

LDast

Without intending to distract too much from the topic, I am dealing with a claim (on a different forum) where a WS has been submitted by Sarah Ensall (DCB Legal). Aside from all the usual flaws in their WS she has opened with:

"I am employed as Head of Bulk Litigation, by the firm of DCB Legal Limited at the above address and I make this Statement in support of the Claimant’s Claim and in response to the Defence.

1. I am duly authorised to make this statement on the Claimant’s behalf. Insofar as the contents of this witness statement are within my personal knowledge, they are true, and insofar as they are not within my personal knowledge, they are true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.

2. I make this Statement in support of the Claimant’s Claim and in response to the Defence upon consideration of the papers.

The above and the fact that the WS is signed by her simply as "Head of Legal" is rebutted in the defendants WS as follows (throwing in mention of CPR 32, for what it's worth):

11. There are also procedural irregularities with the Claimant’s Witness Statement, which has been made by Sarah Jennifer Helena Ensall, an employee of DCB Legal Limited, rather than by the Claimant or an authorised representative of the Claimant.

12. Ms. Ensall does not state that she is a solicitor or that she is acting under a solicitor’s instruction. Her title, 'Head of Bulk Litigation,' is not a legal qualification and does not confer authority to act on the Claimant’s behalf without explicit evidence of authorisation.

13. In her Witness Statement, Ms. Ensall states:

(a) "I am duly authorised to make this statement on the Claimant’s behalf."
(b) However, she provides no evidence of such authorisation, nor does the Claimant itself confirm that she is acting under its instructions.

14. The Civil Procedure Rules require that a witness statement must be based on personal knowledge unless it is made as hearsay evidence under CPR 32.2(1). Ms. Ensall does not have first-hand knowledge of the alleged parking event, the signage, or the contractual arrangements between the Claimant and the landowner.

15. Her statement relies on second-hand information and is therefore hearsay, which the court may give little or no weight to. If the Claimant intended to rely on evidence, it should have been provided by an individual with direct involvement, such as an employee of the Claimant or a representative of the landowner.

16. The Claimant’s failure to produce a proper witness statement from a relevant party further undermines the credibility of its case. The use of a bulk litigation employee to present evidence raises concerns about the accuracy and reliability of the statements made, particularly where they concern matters of fact rather than legal argument.

17. Given these fundamental procedural issues, I respectfully invite the Court to strike out the claim in its entirety. In the alternative, if the claim is not struck out, I submit that the Witness Statement of Sarah Jennifer Helena Ensall should be disregarded or given little to no weight, as it is largely hearsay and lacks first-hand knowledge of the material facts. While she states that she is "duly authorised to make this statement on the Claimant’s behalf," no evidence has been provided to demonstrate the basis or scope of this authorisation. It is unclear whether she has specific authorisation for this claim or is relying on a general contractual arrangement between her employer and the Claimant.

As she has also stated that she will not be attending but has requested that the defendant pay their advocates attendance fee, assuming it actually is heard before a judge and not discontinued at the last minute, the defendant has another point with which to weaken the claimant's WS arguments.

FYI, She has a law degree but has never trained or been a solicitor. She has, in a previous job, stated that she was a paralegal.

ScammingIndustry

so certain solicitors rang me to settle out off court for an absurd amount 😂 I said I'll see you in court or drop the case now. Agent on the phone said I'll ask for further instructions from the claimant and came back with another absurd offer. I said see you in court or drop the case. Agent went on to say I don't have any further instructions, I will get back to you if I do.

I think they were shocked with the response. They thought i'd take it.

Car1980

Johnersh said:

She is just the paralegal and has never set foot inside the car park."

That's unattractive, since it sounds pejorative. Better might be to unpack the statement where it says "facts within my own knowledge unless otherwise stated" and to ask whether the statement actually achieves that (since there would need to be a lot of caveats).

If there are not the caveats, the court may be invited to disregard it or to treat it with a degree of caution.

Pejorative? Yes, exactly!

Nothing wrong with showing some disdain and if the defendant isn't showing some indignation at being a court room over claim for hundreds, mostly for complete fabricated "damages", why not? 😉

ScammingIndustry

ScammingIndustry said:

so certain solicitors rang me to settle out off court for an absurd amount 😂 I said I'll see you in court or drop the case now. Agent on the phone said I'll ask for further instructions from the claimant and came back with another absurd offer. I said see you in court or drop the case. Agent went on to say I don't have any further instructions, I will get back to you if I do.

I think they were shocked with the response. They thought i'd take it.

After "Without prejudice" call yesterday, I rejected all their advances and said see you in court. Today, PPC has decided to discontinue all of the court claim 3 days before the hearing. Please, could you guide me on how I an go about claiming my ordinary cost plus preparation cost for unreasonable behaviour?

Thank you all for your valued feedback.  

Coupon-mad

Yep:

re emailing the court to try for costs, see the blue_toffee link already in the NEWBIES thread.  It's all there. Every stage including this.

But hey, you won! Congrats!

ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST!

Two urgent things:

1. I'm sure you want your success included in the DCB Legal 'disco thread by @Umkomaas and I know he'll be champing at the bit to add you, but to do that we need to see the NoD.

2.  Please do the same as I explained to this poster (the Enquiry closes in 2 days: Friday:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81312891/#Comment_81312891

Thankyou - and well done on your win! Was this a multiple PCN claim? Which PPC and how much did their paralegal ring up to pressure you to cough up?

ScammingIndustry

Thank you for guiding me towards blue_toffee thread. I shall upload the NoD today.

It was a single PCN. Global protection. QDR solicitors called up - First offer was £200 - second offer £150.