Chester 01244 405555

Grosvenor Court
Foregate Street Chester
Cheshire CH1 1HG
DX: 19990 Chester

Shrewsbury 01743 443 043

Lakeside House
Oxon Business Park
Shrewsbury SY3 5HJ
DX: 148563 Shrewsbury 14

Manchester 0844 800 8346

Pall Mall Court
61-67 King Street
Manchester M2 4PD

Send us a message
Our Offices

Buyers of Legal Service Beware!

4th July, 2017

In the case of Ndole Assets Ltd v Designer M & E Services UK Ltd [2017] EWHC 1148 (TCC) an unregulated business has been criticised for not making clear at the outset of the matter, both to the other party and to the Technology and Construction Court (TCC), that they were not a firm of solicitors.

A common feature in modern legal fields is non solicitor consultants or litigation friends involving themselves and the ‘client’ not being aware they are at risk of unqualified advice.

Ndole was a litigant in person however, CSD dealt with the majority of the work in the proceedings on Ndole’s behalf including:

  • Sending draft Particulars of Claim to Designer with a covering letter which began, “We act for Ndole Assets Limited”;
  • Writing to the TCC Registry in a letter that stated that CSD, “are assisting the claimant in this matter”;
  • Mr Dain of CSD served the Claim Form, Particulars of Claim and appendices on Designer. The covering letter identified the documents as being, “enclosed by way of service on you”;
  • Mr Dain completed a Certificate of Service identifying that he had personally served the documents the previous day. Mr Dain signed the Certificate. There were four pre printed alternatives for the person signing the Certificate; ‘claimant’, ‘defendant’, ‘solicitor’, and ‘litigation friend’. Mr Dain struck out them all with the exception of ‘claimant’; and
  • CSD wrote to the TCC Registry enclosing the Certificate of Service, the Particulars of Claim and correspondence.

The issue in dispute was whether the actions of CSD, in particular the service of the Claim Form and the Particulars of Claim, amounted to the ‘commencement’ or ‘prosecution’ of the proceedings or if they were an ‘ancillary function’ in relation to the proceedings and were therefore, a reserved legal activity pursuant to Section 12 of the Legal Services Act 2007. If they did amount to a reserved legal activity then Designer claimed that the service would be unlawful as CSD are not entitled to carry out reserved legal activities.

The High Court concluded that the service of the Claim Form and the Particulars of Claim is a reserved legal activity however, in the circumstances of a litigant in person, he can ask an agent to serve a Claim Form and Particulars of Claim on his behalf and that is what had happened in this case. His Honourable Mr Justice Coulson went on to state that even if he had found that the service was unlawful he would he would take some persuading that the proceedings should be struck out given service was effected and the relevant documents were served upon, and received by, Designer in time.

Despite finding in Ndole’s favour Mr Justice Coulson went on to the criticise the conduct of Mr Dain and CSD stating that a number of the letters that he wrote, referred to above, were misleading because it was not made clear that CSD Legal were not a firm of solicitors and were not authorised to carry out reserved legal activity. He went on to state:

I do find that Mr Dain sailed too close to the wind on a number of occasions. It would have been much better if he had set out CSD Legal’s true position at the outset, both to Designer and to the TCC Registry. I hope that he will heed that advice for the future”.

If you are an unregulated business and you are not sure whether a particular action would be considered a reserved legal activity, contact our Professional Practices team without delay for specialist advice.

Paul Bennett

Partner in Professional Practices and Employment Law
Email: [email protected]
Tel: 01743 453685

Mark Briegal

Partner in Professional Practices and Corporate & Commercial
Email: [email protected]
Tel: 01244 405563

You might also be interested in...

Why there is more to CSR than just boosting a company’s ego

6th July, 2018

When a business invests in its community it deserves praise – but it must go beyond that, writes Helen Watson, a trustee at Claire House and partner at Aaron and Partners Solicitors. Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is the link between a company and the community in which it operates. As a trustee on charity boards including Claire House... Read More »

Stuart Haynes reports on IAG Global – Wiesbaden 14th to 17th June 2018

4th July, 2018

Stuart Haynes, Corporate & Commercial Partner and IAG Global Board Member, reports on IAG Global – Wiesbaden held 14th to 17th June 2018 Stuart Haynes (IAG Global Board Member) Stuart Scott-Goldstone and Nick Clarke attended the recent IAG Global meeting in Wiesbaden which was held at the Grand Hotel Nassauer Hof from 14th – and 17th July 2018 The meeting... Read More »

DNA Test ordered in inheritance dispute where paternity questioned

6th June, 2018

Rhiannon Edwards, Solicitor in the Wills, Trusts and Tax department, discusses the recent judgement in the case of Nield-Moir v Freeman, where the High Court has ordered one of two daughters of Colin Birtles, who has died, to take a DNA test to prove paternity as part of an inheritance dispute In an unusual case, the High Court... Read More »

Contact Us