William Knatchbull successfully resists attempt to strike out an application on the basis of a breach of the Legal Services Act 2007

William Knatchbull acted for the Claimant tenant, against a local authority Defendant, in an application hearing to enforce the terms of a previous Tomlin Order which included an order for specific performance of scheduled items of disrepair.

By way of a witness statement, filed and served less than two days before the hearing, the Defendant raised that the application appeared to be signed by an employee of the Claimant’s legal representative who was not a solicitor and not entitled to carry on reserved legal activities. It being of specific relevance being that they were not authorised or otherwise exempted to conduct litigation, pursuant to the Legal Services Act 2007. The Witness statement raised the case of Julia Mazur & Ors v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP, relying on it to contend that the application was defective and should be struck out.

William prepared a skeleton argument relying on paragraphs 67 and 76 of Mazur itself, where the application for strike out in that case was refused, alongside dicta from R (On the Application of City of York Council) v AUH & Ors [2023] EWCA Crim 6 (“AUH”) and Ndole Assets Ltd v Designer M&E Services UK Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 2865. The issue was dealt with as a preliminary issue. In oral submissions William emphasised, citing the dicta of Sir Geoffry Vos in Magdeev v Tsvetkov [2019] EWCA Civ 1802, the importance of the Court only acting in response to formal applications and  argued on behalf of the Claimant that in any event the application was not a nullity even though it had been signed by an individual who was not authorised to conduct litigation. The Court recorded, as a recital to its order that it had determined the application was not a nullity.”

This and other cases currently being heard in the County Courts reinforce a growing consensus as to how Mazur/LSA2007 arguments will be dealt with in the course of civil litigation. In particular the application of Mazur and AUH ought to lead to the conclusion that a breach of the LSA 2007 does not nullify the steps in the litigation taken in breach. The existent and developing case law suggests that to persuade a court to strike out an application or claim the applicant will need to do so by a formal application showing some additional reason for strike out apart from the breach of the LSA 2007 itself. This is likely to be particularly difficult where the step taken in breach of the LSA 2007 predates the Mazur judgment and the individual was, as in Mazur, acting based on what was at the time a shared misapprehension of the law.

William is available for advice and representation regarding Mazur/LSA 2007 points raised in the course of civil litigation.