Discussion: Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP

Duke1999

See this from Cilex stance

https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/cilex-defends-its-messaging-to-members-over-litigation-rights/5124650.article

ParkingMad

Statement from the SRA:

https://www.sra.org.uk/news/news/mazur-charles-russell-speechlys/

SRA Statement following the case of Julia Mazur & Ora v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP

01 October 2025

Our view is that the judgment in the recent case of Julia Mazur & Ora v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP doesn't change the position in law.

Sheldon J said the Legal Services Act (LSA) makes it clear that only regulated individuals can conduct litigation as it’s a reserved legal activity. Non-authorised individuals can support litigation – as they do in other areas – but only an authorised individual, such as a solicitor, should be conducting litigation.

This is the position that we have reflected in our existing guidance on effective supervision, published in November 2022. In that guidance, we say:

'People who are not themselves authorised to conduct litigation can only support authorised individuals to conduct litigation, rather than conducting litigation themselves under the supervision of an authorised individual.'

There is a distinction between conducting litigation and supporting litigation, but the boundary between the two activities will depend on the facts.  Being engaged (whether as an employee or other contractor) by an authorised person who is permitted to conduct reserved activities does not automatically confer a right to conduct litigation on an employee or contractor who is not authorised. They are permitted to support litigation under appropriate supervision, not to conduct it. 

Our guidance addresses many aspects to consider when assessing appropriate supervision arrangements. The onus is on firms to satisfy themselves that they are complying with the LSA, and only authorised individuals are conducting litigation. We recommend you should be recording your decision-making around the approach you are taking (see 'Recording supervision arrangements' in the guidance).

Firms can also contact our Professional Ethics helpline for support.

Coupon-mad

Our guidance addresses many aspects to consider when assessing appropriate supervision arrangements. 

The onus is on firms to satisfy themselves that they are complying with the LSA, and only authorised individuals are conducting litigation. We recommend you should be recording your decision-making around the approach you are taking (see 'Recording supervision arrangements' in the guidance).

Maybe Defendants should ALL be making complaints to DCB Legal soon after defending (or after putting in a N244)?

Along the lines above, saying: "Your firm file over 110,000 boilerplate parking claims per annum and it is improbable/impossible that only authorised individuals are conducting that level of bulk litigation. Show your records that you have complied with the LSA or I'll report you to the SRA".

Then report them to the SRA, in high numbers.

Umkomaas

👆👆 We need to have people (Defendants) to have the cojones to do just that. 👆👆

doubledotcom

@Coupon-mad, where did you get the 110,000 claims per year figure from for DCB Legal?

Coupon-mad

Educated guess, taking the 98000 p.a. figure in the 2023 draft IA which listed the top 5 parking litigants (it was plain which one was DCB Legal)!

Since then, we know that DCB Legal has issued Euro Car Parks and Smart Parking old PCN claims like there's no tomorrow and on this forum we are definitely seeing at least 10% more court claims than in 2022/23. Almost all from DCBLegal.

My educated guess of 110,000 is likely waaaay under the true 2025 figure, IMHO.

justanotherkeeper1

Question re this case, I read somewhere by coupon-mad that the defence template would be updated but I've not seen the update. I want to use this inclusion as my claim is from DCB and signed by Sarah Ensall.

RogerW_3

doubledotcom said:

I already have several defendants that I have advised to write to DCB Legal (and other litigators where applicable) to request confirmation of any named people who have signed any SoTs or N180s, N279 etc. Also, when you see some of the WS from these bulk litigators where the paralegal or assistant has clearly stated that they have conduct of the litigation under supervision, you have a clear breach of the LSA 2017 which a potential criminal act with both the individual and their firm being liable.

I suggest everyone who has received a claim signed by anyone at any firm represented by any of the bulk litigators to send an email along these lines:

Subject: Claim [Claim No.] — Identification of signatories and authority for reserved steps

Dear Sirs,

Re: [Claimant] v [Defendant] — Claim No. [_____]; issued [date if known]

For costs and compliance purposes, please confirm the identity and authorisation of each natural person who has signed or filed any court-facing document in this claim (including any claim form/Particulars statement of truth, Directions Questionnaire (N180), witness statement, certificate of service, consent order/Tomlin order, or N279).

Please provide, for each such document/filing:

1. Signatory details

   • Full name and job title.

   • Capacity with your firm at the time (employee/consultant/seconded).

2. Personal authorisation to conduct litigation (noting that acting under supervision is not authorisation: see Mazur & Stuart v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB))

   • Whether the signatory was personally authorised to conduct litigation and, if so, the basis:
     • Practising solicitor (SRA number), or
     • CILEX practitioner with litigation rights (membership/authorisation number), or
     • Other recognised authorisation (please specify).

   • If not personally authorised, the name and SRA number of the supervising authorised lawyer who took responsibility for that reserved step, and the basis on which the signatory was permitted to sign/file.

3. Client authority

   • Confirmation that the signatory (or supervising authorised lawyer) held written client authority to take that step on the date it was taken.

4. Document list

   • A short list identifying: document name (e.g., “N180”), date signed/filed, and the signatory named above.

For the avoidance of doubt, if it appears that any reserved legal activity has been carried on by a person who was not authorised or exempt, I reserve the right to refer the matter to the SRA. Section 14 of the Legal Services Act 2007 makes it an offence to carry on a reserved legal activity when not authorised; in addition, the SRA Standards and Regulations place duties on firms and supervising solicitors regarding proper supervision and systems. I will also invite the Court to consider conduct on costs and to direct re-verification by an authorised person where appropriate.

Please provide the above information within 7 days so the position can be recorded accurately.

Yours faithfully,

[Full name]
Defendant

[Address]
[Email]

Any responses will be interesting.

Just emailed to DCB Legal requesting info before or at the hearing on 9 October 2025. Ensall signed the incomplete and incomprehensible POC claiming to be legal representative of Excel. Any tips on how and when to raise the matter during the hearing? 

RogerW_3

Car1980 said:

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

 Neither is Madeleine McCusker, who joined them in July 2025 according to her LinkedIn and who states in correspondence that she is the Case Manager. She has been serving court documents on defendants. They also use Emirul Husnee to serve defendants with a copy of the Claimant car park operator's witness statement, and they have also used Shaun Arrowsmith to email settlement offers and the server defendant's with a copy of the Form N180.

BigToad31

@justanotherkeeper1

See my denfence on page 4 of https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6628307/ecp-dcb-legal-claim-2025/p4

Para's 9-11 highlight this