Kassam v Gill (unreported) 13 August 2018 Case BM80119A (Birmingham County Court)

[R0b]

This is a rare case where the Court has taken the opportunity to consider what is meant by "conduct of litigation" under the Legal Services Act 2007. It is an appeal against the order for possession under the Housing Act 1988.

Under the appeal, HHJ Worster considered whether a Claimant by ticking the online claim form satisfied the statement of truth requirement under CPR 22.1(6). He also provided a helpful analysis of what constitutes "conduct of litigation" under the LSA 2007 and whether the firm, who were instructed by the Claimants and were not solicitors, had carried out an act amounting to conduct of litigation by completing the online form.

[Amethyst]

Interesting. Thanks Rob.

I think it was right the claimant's claim didn't fail due to the shortcomings of the 'chuck out a lodger' firm. Not sure what actual consequences there are/were for the firm though in the end?

[R0b]

I agree with you and I think the Court's have previously shown their disapproval for arguments to strike out a case on a technicality like this where the claim itself is perfectly valid, but that's litigation for you!

As for the non-qualified solicitors firm, I don't think much would be done to them really since they are not regulated by anyone. The SRA could impose a sanction of not allowing them to be authorised as a firm of solicitors or carry out reserved legal activities without first seeking their permission but I think the conduct of litigation argument was something that perhaps needed clarifying since there is so little case law on the LSA and what actions fall into the various reserved legal activities.

If anything, I would think the SRA might give them a warning, and that's assuming the SRA has picked up on this case otherwise it might have slipped through the net.