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

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…

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

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?

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…

THROWBACK FRIDAY: THE COURT OF APPEAL ON THE CREDIBILITY OF AN EXPERT WHO HAD HIDDEN THE FACT THAT THEY HAD BEEN A COLLEAGUE OF THE DEFENDANT (FEBRUARY 2017)

THROWBACK FRIDAY: THE COURT OF APPEAL ON THE CREDIBILITY OF AN EXPERT WHO HAD HIDDEN THE FACT THAT THEY HAD BEEN A COLLEAGUE OF THE DEFENDANT (FEBRUARY 2017)

Here we look at a case where the Court of Appeal addressed the issue of witness credibility head on.  An expert giving evidence for the defendant in a clinical negligence case failed to disclose the fact that he and the…

COURT SETS ASIDE A DECISION THAT A CLAIMANT HAD BREACHED A PEREMPTORY ORDER: THE ORDER WAS NOT DRAFTED "IN THE CLEAREST AND MOST PRECISE LANGUAGE" NECESSARY

COURT SETS ASIDE A DECISION THAT A CLAIMANT HAD BREACHED A PEREMPTORY ORDER: THE ORDER WAS NOT DRAFTED “IN THE CLEAREST AND MOST PRECISE LANGUAGE” NECESSARY

There have been several cases this  week about the drafting of, and compliance with, unless orders.  We see this issue again here. The Court of Appeal held that the claimant litigant in person had complied with an order of the…