DCBL - N244 Application Rejected

[Eryobotrya]

Hello again b789. 

You might remember me from ftla. 

Thought you should see this to forestall the same thing happening to other enquirers:

https://ibb.co/27wKL96Y

The gamble didn't pay off this time, but it was worth a punt - just about.

[b789]

Hi @Eryobotrya.

Thanks for sharing the order. I no longer have access to FTLA, so I do not know the background. What exactly was the application you made — was it a costs application following discontinuance, or something else?

From the face of the order, the judge has struck out your application and made clear that, even if the signatory of the form was not authorised to conduct litigation, that point alone did not amount to unreasonable conduct under CPR 27.14(2)(g) in the small claims track.

That does not mean the authorisation issue is irrelevant. It means that in a small claims context, the threshold for “unreasonable conduct” is high. Discontinuance, even combined with a potential authorisation defect, will not automatically justify costs.

The fact that a form may have been signed or filed by someone without litigation rights does not automatically render the entire claim void. In principle, the defect can be addressed procedurally. However, as this order demonstrates, in the small claims track the court may take the view that such a defect, even if established, is not enough on its own to amount to unreasonable conduct for the purposes of CPR 27.14(2)(g).

On the information available from the order alone, the judge has simply taken the view that this was not enough to justify a departure from the usual small claims costs position. If you can outline the procedural steps that led to this application, it will be easier to assess whether the “punt” was realistically winnable or always going to be an uphill argument in small claims.

[Eryobotrya]

The 'punt' was pursued on the basis of your advice on ftla. I'll copy it across from ftla later to remind you of the background. I only came here to let you know that the N244 application was rejected so that others are spared the cost of £120 for an action that is unlikely to succeed.

[Eryobotrya]

Here's some background to jog your memory:

Thank you for that. You should now send the following email to info@dcblegal.co.uk and CC yourself:

Quote

[b]Subject: Claim [claim number] – N279 signed by paralegal: authority to conduct litigation, signature validity, and regulatory notice[/b]

Dear Sir/Madam,

I refer to the Notice of Discontinuance (Form N279) filed/served in this claim. It is signed “L. Travis”, position “Paralegal”, and purports to be signed on behalf of the claimant’s solicitor.

Please confirm by return:

1. The signatory’s full name (forename and surname), capacity, and whether they are an authorised person within the meaning of the Legal Services Act 2007 with current rights to conduct litigation (provide SRA/CILEX number and practising status). If not authorised,
2. The precise exemption relied upon under Schedule 3 of the Legal Services Act 2007 that permits that individual to conduct litigation and sign the N279 in these proceedings (enclose the sealed court order or the specific statutory provision, as applicable).

For the avoidance of doubt:

• Preparing, signing, filing or serving an N279 is conduct of litigation.
• Practice Direction 22 requires the individual’s name and capacity when signing on behalf of a party; an initial plus surname is not adequate for verification of authorisation.
• Following [i]Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP[/i], unqualified employees may assist but cannot themselves conduct litigation unless authorised or exempt.

Action required:

• Confirm the above within 7 days.
• If the document was not signed by an authorised (or exempt) person, file and serve a compliant N279 personally signed by an authorised person, with their full name clearly stated.

Costs and regulatory notice:

If the N279 was signed by a person not authorised or exempt, or must be re-filed/served to correct the signer’s identity/status, I, as a litigant in person, will treat this as unreasonable conduct. In line with [i]Mazur[/i] and CPR 27.14(2)(g), I will invite the Court, in its discretion, to order the claimant to pay the defendant’s costs caused by your firm’s irregular conduct and, if appropriate, to consider wasted costs against representatives.

Further, conducting a reserved legal activity without entitlement is a criminal offence under the Legal Services Act 2007. If any unauthorised conduct of litigation has occurred, I will report the matter to the SRA without further notice and reserve all rights to place this correspondence before the Court.

Yours faithfully,

[Full name]
[Postal address]
[Email]

[b789]

Did I suggest you pay for an N244 application?