Discussion: Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP

Coupon-mad

Car1980 said:

The problem there is that both the Law Society and the SRA never came up with that argument, even after two rounds of submissions.

Can we find their submissions anywhere?

I do think it'll be interesting if it goes to appeal. Bulk Litigators might need to be careful what they wish for.

prowla

Duke1999 said:

I struggle to see the justification for allowing firms like DCB Legal who routinely pursue individuals through the county court system only to withdraw at the eleventh hour. Measures that prevent the courts from being used to intimidate consumers are not only beneficial for those consumers, but also for the integrity of the judicial process. It's time to put an end to this kind of racket.

I sometimes wonder why they aren't picked up for persistently wasting the courts' time.

doubledotcom

I had this conversation with a judge and his view was that initiating a claim is not an abuse of process. Neither is discontinuing. However, the timing of a discontinuance can be, which goes to costs for unreasonable behaviour. Unfortunately, most of the defendants in these cases are simply relieved that the process is over and do not want to continue dealing with the matter.

Personally, I'd be much more interested in some kind of investigation into possible champerty by DCB Legal et al.

jd576

doubledotcom said:

Personally, I'd be much more interested in some kind of investigation into possible champerty by DCB Legal et al.

I thought champerty was allowed in UK law?

doubledotcom

It is under some circumstances. Maybe I should have worded it better.

Calling bulk parking litigation “champertous” would unlikely to be determinative. The better route is to expose standing, particulars, compliance, and conduct failures. Where funding/fee arrangements give a solicitor or third party improper control or amount to trading in bare rights to litigate, the court can mark the agreement unenforceable on public-policy grounds—but those are narrower, fact-sensitive scenarios.

I think that their business model is to hoover up old alleged debts, issue claims en masse, rely on default CCJs/fear payments, and kick back ‘crumbs’ to the operator”.

1. Authority & standing: Is the claimant the true creditor or a proper assignee?

2. Merits & pleadings: Do the PoCs disclose a cause of action with facts particularised to the site/signage/contract and period of parking?

3. Process integrity: Was PAPDC followed? Are multiple claims being split? Have exaggerated/fixed “damages” or added sums offended the rules?

4. Conduct: Is there evidence of unreasonable or oppressive litigation conduct (templates ignoring clear defences, late ambushes, defective evidence)?

5. Regulatory compliance: Are communications accurate and fair? Are success fees/introducer fees compliant with SRA rules and the DBA/CFA regimes? Fee-sharing with non-authorised persons is tightly policed.

Coupon-mad

jd576 said:

doubledotcom said:

Personally, I'd be much more interested in some kind of investigation into possible champerty by DCB Legal et al.

I thought champerty was allowed in UK law?

I posted about this a few times. Whilst it's not illegal it can offend against public policy. Look at the defence by @BigToad31

I'd add a number 6 to the list:

6.  Are the solicitors fronting the court fees, giving them an imbalanced commercial interest in the claim?

Car1980

First (non-parking) case where ruling has been used: https://www.legalfutures.co.uk/latest-news/mazur-sra-breakes-silence-and-lawyer-cites-it-to-justify-bill

I think we need a guinea pig to take on DCB Legal and file a defence that ONLY consists of Mazur. I'm on the brink of a claim myself. You never know, they might immediately withdraw the claim. Crowd funding the £250 to cover any losses would be good idea. 

Also, any chance we could change the title of this thread to Julia Mazur & Ora v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP as I keep losing track of it?

Coupon-mad

Beware of relying fully on Mazur in a case where the POC was signed by a solicitor.

It was tested this week in a parking 'strike out the POC' application case at Luton (this one wasn't a DCB Legal case, as the Claim Form was signed by a solicitor):

"I raised the Mazur point but the judge was having none of it.

She said that the fact that the claim form was signed by a solicitor meant Mazur wasn’t an issue - even though a paralegal subsequently filed a witness statement in which she said she had conduct of the case.

Fortunately, I had other lines of attack and ended up winning costs (including the £313 application fee) and an unless order requiring the claimant to file and serve proper particulars within 14 days."

Car1980

"Beware of relying fully on Mazur in a case where the POC was signed by a solicitor."

Wouldnt apply in that case anyway though?

A_Geordie

Car1980 said:

Also, any chance we could change the title of this thread to Julia Mazur & Ora v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP as I keep losing track of it?

I have updated the title of the thread.