Discussion: Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP

Coupon-mad

Car1980 said:

Have we reached a consensus whether Sarah Ensall can legitimately file a claim on behalf of DCB Legal?

Looks like she cannot.

Duke1999

I have a claim in December and will definitely be adding the points CM has made. 

doubledotcom

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.

Car1980

Sounds good, but it will just be ignored I suspect.

Any scope for pre-action uses?

doubledotcom

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.

Duke1999

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.

I've already sent an email outlining that exact request, including a seven-day deadline. I’ll follow up with a further email once that period has passed.

jd576

doubledotcom said:

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.

In my recent hearing in which the case was struck out, the legal firm was BW Legal and the witness statement from the paralegal started with the line "I have conduct of this action subject to the supervision of my principal. [...] I am duly authorised by the Claimant to make this statement on its behalf".

Worthwhile referring them to the SRA for this? It would be just recompense for the borderline-defamatory ad-hominem attacks they made on me. 

doubledotcom

A paralegal may work on litigation if they fall within an exemption and are properly supervised by an authorised litigator. The issue is not the job title but whether their activities and supervision met the Legal Services Act 2007 framework and SRA standards.

The phrasing “I have conduct of this action subject to the supervision of my principal” is clumsy. On its face it can imply personal conduct of litigation by an unauthorised individual. If, in reality, an authorised solicitor had conduct and the paralegal was acting under supervision, the statement should have said so plainly. Misleading the court (even carelessly) engages SRA Principles and the Code of Conduct.

The statement by the paralegal should have made it clear that they are assisting the authorised solicitor and identified that person. Something along these lines:

"I am a paralegal at BW Legal. [Full name], solicitor (SRA ID …), has conduct of this claim. I have prepared this statement under their supervision. The facts are from my own knowledge or the firm’s records as stated. I am authorised by the Claimant to make this statement."

They should not have said “I have conduct of this action” unless they are personally authorised to conduct litigation. They have blurred “I’m authorised to make a witness statement” with “I’m authorised to conduct litigation.” They are different things.

You have reasonable grounds to question whether it misled the court about who had conduct and whether supervision was adequate. That is an SRA issue (accuracy to the court; effective supervision), quite apart from any tone or ad-hominem.

What I suggest you do first is write a short professional complaint to BW Legal: ask who held conduct, who is the authorised litigator responsible, and on what basis the paralegal’s role was exempt; identify the ad-hominem passages and ask for an apology/assurance this won’t recur. Also, check the names on the N1SDT Claim Form, the N180 DQ and any other document that was signed and sent to you or the court and ask about the authority that those persons had to conduct litigation.

If their response is unsatisfactory—or if you have clear evidence of unauthorised conduct or misleading the court—then report to the SRA, enclosing the strike-out order and the impugned passages. Keep your report factual and unemotive.

Legal Services Act 2007, section 14 — “Offence to carry on a reserved legal activity if not entitled.” Conduct of litigation is a reserved legal activity (see s.12 and Schedule 2).

Breaching s.14 is a criminal offence. The Act provides for criminal penalties on conviction (with entitlement determined under s.13).

Coupon-mad

I think people should be bombarding the SRA but only AFTER getting WS because some claims are signed by solicitors (BW Legal and Moorside ones are) and the in-house claims - CEL, VCS, ParkingEye, SIP - are likely to be by authorised persons.

So we don't want to confuse posters into doing this too early or in every case.

To avoid scattergun complaints, the time after WS is the time to strike.

This advice came from @bargepole elsewhere:

If a case goes to a hearing, raise a preliminary submission at the hearing that the Claimant's solicitors are in breach of the LSA 2007, citing Mazur as authority, and therefore under the doctrine of ex turpi causa, the Claimant should not be permitted to benefit from the illegal actions, and consequently the entire WS should be excluded from the case.

@jd576 your case IS one that you could report to the SRA. More people should. After all, the SRA intervened (along with the Law Society) to inform and assist in reaching the Mazurs judgment.

So the SRA can't really sweep these complaints under the carpet!

doubledotcom

Yes, I don't disagree. However, the damning statements are mostly in the WS anyway. Here are few from the different bulk litigators:

DCB Legal: "I am an employee of DCB Legal Ltd of Direct House, Greenwood Drive, Manor Park, Runcorn, WA7

1UG and I have conduct of this matter. I am duly authorised to make this Statement of the..."

Gladstones: Claim forms are signed by John Davies or Frances Bennett, who are solicitors.  Witness statements generally come from paralegals and contain the following language which does mention supervision by a solicitor (which we now know doesn’t help): "I am a Paralegal in the employment of Gladstones Solicitors Limited, who act for the Claimant in this matter. I have conduct of this action, subject to the supervision of my principal."

BW Legal: Claim forms are signed by Rohan Krishnarao who is a solicitor. Witness statements generally come from paralegals and contain the following language which does mention supervision by a solicitor (which we now know doesn’t help): "BW Legal Services Limited are the Solicitors for the Claimant. I have conduct of this

action subject to the supervision of my principal. The matters to which..."

Moorside Legal: Claim forms are signed by Ibrar Ahmad who is a solicitor but not for Moorside according to the SRA. Witness statements generally come from paralegals and contain the following language which does mention supervision by a solicitor (which we now know doesn’t help): "Moorside Legal Limited are the Solicitors instructed by the Claimant. I am a paralegal employed by Moorside and I have conduct of this matter subject to the supervision of my Principal. I am duly authorised to make this statement on the Claimant’s behalf."

In all those cases, the paralegal has admitted their conduct of the litigation in breach of the LSA 2007.