THE COURT ALLOWS "CO-COUNSELLING" OF FIRMS ACTING FOR THE CLAIMANTS: BUT WITH STRINGENT CONDITIONS...

I cannot recall many cases that deal with the issue of “co-counselling”, that is allowing more than one firm of solicitors to act for a group of claimants in one action.  That is the issue considered here.  The court allowed…

NEW RULES CAME INTO FORCE YESTERDAY: A QUICK REMINDER

New rules came into force yesterday.  The key changes have been reviewed in a series of posts on this site.  To refresh your memory a summary of the posts are below. Changes have also been made to the rules in…

MAZUR MATTERS 56: WHY WE MUST BE WARY OF THE SRA DEFINITION: CAN AN UNAUTHORISED PERSON REALLY "CONDUCT LITIGATION" EVEN UNDER SUPERVISION?

The judgment, quite expressly, passes a lot of responsibility for the detail of supervision on to the regulators.  In this respect it is important that the regulators get the law right (and lets be honest their track record to date…

WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY 2: WHAT HAPPENED TO COSTS WHEN PARTS OF THE DEFENDANT'S STATEMENT WERE STRUCK OUT?

We are looking separately at the order for costs made in the case considered in the previous post. This emphasises the point that non-compliance with the rules can be costly.  The defendant was ordered to pay the costs of the…

THE MAZUR DECISION TODAY 4: THE CONCLUSIONS: IF AN UNATHORISED PERSON IS IN REALITY CONDUCTING THE LITIGATION "THEY WILL BE COMMITTING AN OFFENCE"

The judgment in Mazur today is far more nuanced than some observers have suggested. It is not an “as we were” situation. There is still scope for those working within solicitors’ practices to be breaking the law and thus committing…

THE MAZUR DECISION TODAY 2:  WHAT CAN AN "UNAUTHORISED" PERSON DO?

We continue with our breakdown of the Mazur decision today.   Here the Court of Appeal considers what an “unauthorised” person can do. (The next post will look at the practical examples the judgment gives).   “The judge was wrong to…