Discussion: Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP

ParkingMad

Link to a statement by Cilex about Mazur v Speechlys:

https://www.cilex.org.uk/media/media_releases/litigation-practice-rights-statement/

doubledotcom

A_Geordie said:
Out of curiosity, what are you trying to achieve with the argument

Because the defect is procedural and curable, not jurisdictional. An unauthorised person signing the Particulars of Claim is a breach of the rules on who may conduct litigation, but CPR 3.10 and the overriding objective mean the court will usually permit the claimant to cure it (for example by re-signing and re-filing/serving the PoC with a proper statement of truth from an authorised person). It is therefore not an automatic ground for strike-out. Strike-out under CPR 3.4 is discretionary and tends to be reserved for cases where the defect cannot be remedied, the statement of case discloses no reasonable grounds, abuse of process, or serious prejudice that cannot be put right.

That said, commencing and progressing proceedings using an unauthorised signatory is still improper. Once raised, the claimant must cure it; failure or delay would risk sanctions up to and including strike-out. Even if cured, the initial non-compliance is capable of amounting to unreasonable conduct, exposing the claimant to a costs order (small claims: CPR 27.14(2)(g); generally: CPR 44.11). Recent authority confirms that unauthorised employees cannot conduct litigation; the practical consequence is remedial steps and potential costs, not automatic nullity of the entire claim.

As for the witness statement (WS): a WS made by a paralegal does not, by itself, become invalid. CPR 32 permits a WS from any competent witness; what matters is that it complies with the formalities (identifies the maker, sources of knowledge, exhibits, and bears a proper statement of truth). The maker need not be a solicitor or authorised litigator, and representatives often give hearsay or procedural evidence. So the WS stands as evidence if it meets CPR 32/PD 22, even if the maker is not authorised to conduct litigation.

However, where that paralegal has signed a statement of truth and admits they “have conduct of the case under supervision” and are acting for the claimant, that is an admission pointing to a breach of the Legal Services Act 2007 (conduct of litigation is a reserved activity and supervision does not create authorisation or an exemption). That breach does not automatically nullify the WS or the claim, but it is cogent evidence of unreasonable conduct. The court can require the defect to be cured (e.g. re-signing by an authorised person) and may impose sanctions, including costs (small claims: CPR 27.14(2)(g). It also leaves the firm open to referral to the SRA for investigation and appropriate regulatory sanctions.

Realistically, the handful of regulated solicitors in bulk litigation firms cannot personally sign every N1SDT, N180 (DQ), N279 (Notice of Discontinuance), and other court-facing document across the hundreds of thousands of claims issued each year. They are in a bind.

Le_Kirk

doubledotcom said:.

That said, commencing and progressing proceedings using an unauthorised signatory is still improper. Once raised, the claimant must cure it; failure or delay would risk sanctions up to and including strike-out. Even if cured, the initial non-compliance is capable of amounting to unreasonable conduct, exposing the claimant to a costs order (small claims: CPR 27.14(2)(g); generally: CPR 44.11). Recent authority confirms that unauthorised employees cannot conduct litigation; the practical consequence is remedial steps and potential costs, not automatic nullity of the entire claim.

Couple of questions if I may: -
1. Once raised - what does this mean in practice, if a defendant writes to the claimant's solicitor company upon receipt of a POC apparently signed by a non-qualified person, is this raised?
2) claimant must cure it - how long does the claimant have to cure it?

Car1980

"I'll be honest, I have never seen or heard of a witness statement being struck out on the basis that the witness is too remote to be a genuine witness to give evidence."

(the quote function does not seem to be working for me)

Sorry, not struck out as in a formal Order. Dismissed at the hearing I meant.

Same resuilt though. 

jd576

Car1980 said:

(the quote function does not seem to be working for me)

You have to highlight the text and press the quote function button twice and then it works