Free Traffic Legal Advice

Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: b789 on September 28, 2025, 05:28:51 pm

Title: Re: Why the recent High Court appellate case of Mazur is very relevant to all cases we deal with here
Post by: b789 on November 05, 2025, 08:05:42 pm
Agreed.anLoC is "pre-litigation" correspondence, therefore not classed as conduct of litigation. However, and LoC must comply with the PAPDC and failure to do so can be reported to the SRA. This is why we always provide a template response that points this out and any defendant can then make a formal complaint to the SRA if the LoC or subsequent responses fail to comply.
Title: Re: Why the recent High Court appellate case of Mazur is very relevant to all cases we deal with here
Post by: DWMB2 on November 05, 2025, 05:53:29 pm
Quote from: InterCity125 on November 05, 2025, 04:02:29 pm
Does the issuing of a Letter Before Claim fall come under the banner of 'conducting litigation'?
I'd say not. Schedule 2 of the Legal Services Act (2007) defines "conduct of litigation" for the purposes of the Act:

4(1)The “conduct of litigation” means—

(a)the issuing of proceedings before any court in England and Wales,

(b)the commencement, prosecution and defence of such proceedings, and

(c)the performance of any ancillary functions in relation to such proceedings (such as entering appearances to actions).

A Letter of Claim is issued before proceedings are issued/commenced.
Title: Re: Why the recent High Court appellate case of Mazur is very relevant to all cases we deal with here
Post by: InterCity125 on November 05, 2025, 04:02:29 pm
Quick question;

Does the issuing of a Letter Before Claim fall come under the banner of 'conducting litigation'?

There seems to be more and more LBCs which are not signed by an individual - ie just signed off as 'XXX Legal Services' etc.
Title: Re: Why the recent High Court appellate case of Mazur is very relevant to all cases we deal with here
Post by: DWMB2 on October 06, 2025, 09:05:31 pm
In a lot of the cases we see, the bulk litigation firms managing the cases are potentially acting contrary to this ruling. As an example. it's fairly common to see witness statements written by a paralegal at one of said firms, that begins with a statement such as "I am a paralegel at [law firm] and I have conduct of this case". At face value, that would seem to be an unauthorised person conducting litigation.
Title: Re: Why the recent High Court appellate case of Mazur is very relevant to all cases we deal with here
Post by: roythebus on October 06, 2025, 08:59:11 pm
In simple terms, how does this affect the likes of the good people on here who assist in a lot of the PCN cases we read of on here?
Title: Why the recent High Court appellate case of Mazur is very relevant to all cases we deal with here
Post by: b789 on September 28, 2025, 05:28:51 pm
What the High Court has decided in Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) (https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/KB/2025/2341.html), in plain English:

Only people who are authorised (for example, a solicitor with a current practising certificate) or who fall within a statutory exemption are allowed to conduct litigation. Conducting litigation means issuing and running court proceedings and the key ancillary steps. Being unqualified but supervised by a solicitor does not make it lawful to run a case. Supervision does not confer the right to conduct litigation.

If an unauthorised person conducts litigation, that is a criminal offence for the individual. It can also be a criminal offence for the law firm if the offence is committed by its employee while carrying on the firm’s litigation work. Beyond the criminal aspect, the court can refuse the firm its costs and, in some cases, strike out the claim.

The judgment does not change the law. It confirms what the Legal Services Act 2007 has always required since it came into force. Before that Act, unqualified staff in a firm could, under supervision, conduct litigation. Since the Act, they cannot. Cases concluded before the Act are unaffected.

In this case, the defendants (Mazur and Stuart) challenged steps taken by a firm’s “Head of Commercial Litigation” who did not hold a practising certificate. A deputy district judge stayed the claim and required the firm either to fix the problem or face strike out. A circuit judge later lifted the stay once a qualified solicitor had taken over and ordered the defendants to pay £10,653 in costs. On appeal, the High Court held that the unqualified person had not been entitled to conduct litigation even under supervision. The court also held that the circuit judge’s reliance on an SRA letter implying that supervised conduct was permitted was wrong in law. The costs order was varied to no order for costs. The High Court added that, even if costs had been appropriate, this was an Intermediate Track fixed costs situation where only £333 plus the court fee of £303 could have been awarded.

The court invited and heard submissions from the Law Society and the SRA. Both confirmed the correct position: non-authorised staff may support an authorised solicitor with litigation, sometimes to a significant degree, but they cannot themselves be the person conducting litigation, even if a solicitor oversees them. Who is “conducting” the litigation turns on substance: who has assumed responsibility and exercises professional judgment on litigation decisions.

Practical effects. Law firms must ensure that the individual who signs core court documents and makes litigation decisions is personally authorised (or exempt). Non-qualified staff can assist but cannot “run” a case. If an unauthorised person has conducted litigation, the firm risks losing its costs, facing strike-out issues, and exposure to criminal liability. Because this judgment states what the law has always been since 2007, some past and ongoing cases may be open to challenge where unauthorised staff effectively ran the litigation.