The recent judgment in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) was considered in relation to discretion and costs in respect of an application under CPR 19.6 opposed by Alexander Heylin instructed by Brett Wilson for the Defendant to substitute the claimant after the end of the claim’s limitation period.
Key points:
- Alexander Heylin, appearing for the defendant, opposed an application under CPR 19.6 to substitute the claimant after the end of the claim’s limitation period.
- Mr Heylin was instructed by Brett Wilson’s Max Campbell and Vishalee Amin, who was praised by the judge for her “conspicuously clear and helpful” witness statements.
- The gateways under 19.6 were not met. The proceedings were issued outside the limitation period and substitution was not necessary because there was no mistake and the original claimant was a nullity.
- Had the gateways been met, the judge would have exercised his discretion not to grant the application, given the conduct of the claimant.
- The judge considered Mazur because the person who signed the application notice was not authorised to conduct litigation under the LSA. Although this rendered the application liable to be struck out, the judge would have been reluctant to strike out on that ground alone before adjourning for the claimant to take instructions and for a further copy to be signed by someone authorised. Nevertheless, the claimant’s failure to rectify the issue after it was queried by the defendant’s solicitors counted against it in discretion.
- The application was dismissed with the claimant to pay cots for the whole of the proceedings on the indemnity basis with a substantial payment on account.
