Discussion: Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP

A_Geordie

Hot off the press, is the case of Mazur and Stewart v Charles Russell Speechlys [2025] EWHC 2341

Thought this might interest the community because I have a feeling this is going have a potentially significant impact in the way law firms do their business, not least for DCBL and similar firms operating in this sphere (possibly parking co.'s too). 

The High Court has confirmed that an unqualified staff member cannot conduct litigation if they work in a regulated law firm even if supervised by a solicitor. The full judgment below but definitely worth a read and is a short judgment.  

A key snippet: 

The person conducting litigation, even under supervision, must be authorised to do so, or fall within one of the exempt categories.

Link to judgment: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/KB/2025/2341.html

Coupon-mad

Interesting. Makes me wonder too:

Is JB of VCS - or even Mr Shoreman-Lawson of Elms Legal - an authorised person?

h2g2

I have some questions about the practical implications of this:

1. Does this mean that a claim form without a person's name attached to it can be struck out? (E.g. if the claim form is signed by "Acme Parking Litigation Ltd") Does it make a difference if the company is Acme Parking Litigation Ltd (a hypothetical legal firm, regulated by the SRA) or Tickets For You Ltd (a hypothetical PPC)?

2. Same question, but a witness statement instead?

3. If the claim form is signed by a person, does that person have to be regulated by the SRA? What about a director of Tickets For You Ltd? What about a member of "Tickets For You Ltd Litigation Team" or something?

4. Should we draft another preliminary matter to conditionally add to the template defence? This would highlight this appeal judgment and ask for the claim to be struck out (or amended) if these conditions aren't met? Asking for amendment might work well since I can imagine many places simply not bothering; or actual SRA members maybe being wary about putting their name to particularly poorly pleaded PoCs. 

Coupon-mad

And do we think a law firm employee (e.g. DCB Legal) doing a Mediation call is involved in a reserved activity because that's negotiating settlement?

You'd have thought so. It's not admin!

Car1980

Sarah Ensall (The Open University. Bachelor of Laws) is not listed on the SRA for DCB Legal.

Coupon-mad

And it supports ALL CCJ set aside applications too!

Right that's going into the Template Defence. I will have to make it a generic statement about the signatory and put them to proof.

People should add this to WS too (both for ordinary claims and for CCJ cases:

The recent High Court judgment in Mazur and Stuart v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) underlines the importance of ensuring litigation is carried out by qualified and authorised professionals. It cuts into the heart of bulk litigation and rips it out.

In this case, the POC signatory does not appear to be on the SRA list and the staff preparing documents and attending Court Mediation to negotiate settlements are believed to be paralegals. Even if acting under supervision, it is averred that none of this 'conducting litigation' activity is allowed from unauthorised staff.

And that is before even considering the doctrine of champerty in cases where a bulk law firm might have 'fronted' the court fee and is maintaining tens/hundreds of thousands of claims per annum with no sign of client (or authorised solicitor) involvement. This model can be contrary to public policy and the arrangement unenforceable as a result.

In Tactus Holdings Limited (in admin) v Philip Mark Jordan & Ors [2025] EWHC 133 (Comm), the High Court recently handed down an important reminder that, notwithstanding the changing nature of public policy, the rules against champerty and maintenance remain. See also Farrar & Anor v Miller [2022] EWCA Civ 295

In order to uphold the integrity of the solicitor-client relationship and the role of solicitors as officers of the court and whilst contingency fee arrangements are not illegal per se, this sort of bulk litigation can still offend the courts. particularly in an industry identified by the last two Governments as in 'market failure' (super-profiteering is suggested by the MHCLG in 2025). Discussed here: https://gatehouselaw.co.uk/champerty-public-policy-and-the-winds-of-change-out-of-breath/

This law firm is believed to act on a bulk 'no win no fee' basis and the latter decision reinforces that solicitor firms must not engage in arrangements that give them a purely commercial interest in their clients' litigation. It looks that way in this case and the Claimant is put to strict proof, failing which, the court is invited to strike the claim out and grant the Defendant's  costs on the indemnity basis, due to wholly unreasonable conduct.

Duke1999

It would be worth sending an email to DCB Legal directly and strongly consider escalating the matter to the SRA for regulatory review.

ChirpyChicken

Coupon-mad said:

Interesting. Makes me wonder too:

Is JB of VCS - or even Mr Shoreman-Lawson of Elms Legal - an authorised person?

Shoreman lawson is

Gr1pr

Reading the transcript,  the name Judge Simpkiss rings a bell for a different case!

Coupon-mad

Gr1pr said:

Reading the transcript,  the name Judge Simpkiss rings a bell for a different case!

Yep I nearly threw up!

The stuff of nightmares: he's the clueless Circuit Judge at Lewes Court, who admitted he had zero background in contract law and just sat there calling One Parking Solution 'ParkingEye' and lapping up everything OPS' barrister said, including granting over three grand in costs against Mrs Wilshaw in a case where the parking firm's WS didn't just carry the name of a paralegal BUT IT ALSO WASN'T SIGNED BY HER, and it attached provably false evidence of signs & lines not there at the time of parking.

And Mrs Wilshaw had been ambushed with a lease at the first hearing (that I'd won hands down). He was told we'd ambushed OPS ... and he believed it all.

He also admitted he'd seen a letter from OPS that Mrs Wilshaw hadn't seen, that HHJ Simpkiss said told him that if he let the first instance judgment stand, then OPS 'wouldn't be able to operate or litigate'.

He had no idea. Literally no idea that OPS often lost cases on his circuit. and how he awarded those costs in a case allocated to small claims is anyone's guess.

Oh and he added the costs up wrong by £500 too. We had to push to get that changed.

Hopeless IMHO.

Gr1pr

Thank you,  I thought that it might be that OPS case so glad to see him overruled in this new case 

Such a shame for that poor lady you helped,  I remember adding to the fund  !