Discussion: Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP

Le_Kirk

........... also @justanotherkeeper1 the template defence (updated) in one of the announcements on the first page of the forum.

Coupon-mad

Le_Kirk said:

........... also @justanotherkeeper1 the template defence (updated) in one of the announcements on the first page of the forum.

Except not including Mazur yet.

And I am about to go on holiday this month so it may have to wait!

kryten3000

I've seen a claim form received from DCB Legal dated 8th October which is signed by David John Croot, who I believe is one of their qualified solicitors.  Looks like they're reacting to this ruling. 

Coupon-mad

kryten3000 said:

I've seen a claim form received from DCB Legal dated 8th October which is signed by David John Croot, who I believe is one of their qualified solicitors.  Looks like they're reacting to this ruling. 

Thought they would.

But he cannot claim to be conducting over 110,000 individual parking court claims personally.

Humdinger1

Even a legally competent octopus would struggle to conduct 110,000 cases personally.   As ever @Coupon-mad you are right.  May I thank you and the other core members of this devoted posse on behalf of a grateful nation.  Humdinger 

doubledotcom

It is implausible that a single solicitor could submit ~100,000 MCOL claims/year. If unauthorised staff actually click “Issue” and apply the statement of truth in his name, that is the conduct of litigation by an unauthorised person, which supervision cannot cure post-Mazur.

Therefore you need to ask the SRA to verify who is performing each reserved step. You could ask the SRA the following:

“DCB Legal’s parking claims formerly showed an unauthorised employee as signatory. Immediately after Mazur, claim forms now show Mr David John Croot (a solicitor). Given the firm’s very high volume, it appears implausible that Mr Croot is personally performing the reserved step of issuing each claim via MCOL and signing the statement of truth.

I reasonably suspect unauthorised staff are conducting litigation by submitting claims under his name. Please require the firm to evidence, for a sample of cases, (i) who actually submitted each MCOL claim (user IDs, audit logs), (ii) who applied the statement of truth, and (iii) the firm’s supervision and delegation arrangements.”

Asking the SRA to obtain MCOL account logs and the firm’s audit trails are determinative.

Spirity

doubledotcom said:

It's an open letter which means it can be shown to the court, especially when it comes to any costs application. If there is no response, it is damning.

This is the response I received from DCB Legal.
________________

Good Afternoon,

I can confirm our Firm is SRA regulated and our supervising Solicitor is David Croot.

Thorndorise

Spirity said:

doubledotcom said:

It's an open letter which means it can be shown to the court, especially when it comes to any costs application. If there is no response, it is damning.

This is the response I received from DCB Legal.
________________

Good Afternoon,

I can confirm our Firm is SRA regulated and our supervising Solicitor is David Croot.

Not quite the same thing from them, I'm sure that wasn't the question right...
Such an exhaustive answer too, looks like they spent as much time on that as they do checking the right address to serve correspondence too!

Duke1999

I've received no response from DCB Legal. I will include the unanswered emails as part of my evidence and raise the issue in my case in the coming months.

doubledotcom

Spirity said:

doubledotcom said:

It's an open letter which means it can be shown to the court, especially when it comes to any costs application. If there is no response, it is damning.

This is the response I received from DCB Legal.
________________

Good Afternoon,

I can confirm our Firm is SRA regulated and our supervising Solicitor is David Croot.

Can you confirm that you used this template for the email you sent to DCB Legal that garnered that response?

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]