Yes, you shoul still send that email. Here is why...
That wording – “in accordance with CPR 2.3(1)” – is basically DCB Legal’s boilerplate attempt to make the sign-off look compliant.
Here’s what it refers to:
• CPR 2.3(1) is in the definitions section of the Civil Procedure Rules.
• It defines, amongst other things, what a “legal representative” means:
“Legal representative” means a barrister, solicitor, solicitor’s employee or other authorised litigator (as defined in the Legal Services Act 2007) or a person authorised under the Legal Services Act 2007 to conduct litigation.
So, when they write “Claimant’s Legal Representative as defined by CPR 2.3(1)”, they are asserting that the signatory (e.g. Sarah Ensall) falls into one of those categories.
Why it matters:• It doesn’t prove authorisation – it’s just a self-certification.
• If the signatory isn’t an authorised person under the Legal Services Act 2007 (or exempt), then describing themselves as a “legal representative under CPR 2.3(1)” is misleading.
• This goes to the point highlighted in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025]: only authorised (or exempt) individuals can actually “conduct litigation.” Employees can assist under supervision, but cannot sign/act as the litigating representative themselves.
• Therefore, the reference to CPR 2.3(1) is an assertion of status, and you are entitled to demand proof (SRA number, exemption relied on, etc.).
In short: it’s DCB Legal trying to cloak the signature with CPR authority, but unless the person is actually authorised or exempt, the words don’t cure the defect.