![KA-2025-000012 - [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_AJKZXmE.png){kind=logo}
KA-2025-000012 - [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB)
Fecha: 16-Sep-2025
Other relief
Other relief
I refuse Mrs Mazur’s request that the Court should refer Mr Middleton and Mr Ashall to the SRA for further investigation. The SRA have already intimated in their submissions to the Court that they will await this judgment before deciding what steps to take.
I also refuse Mrs Mazur’s invitation to strike out the Respondent’s claim as an abuse of process. Whether or not the lodging of the initial claim was tainted by the involvement of Mr Middleton, the matter has been rectified. The signature of a relevant employee at GBS has been added to the Claim Form. Further, for some time Mr Middleton has been replaced by Lisa Adkin, a qualified solicitor, as the person working on the claim. To strike out the claim would cause real prejudice to the Respondent, which may have a viable case against the Appellants (on which I express no view). The hardship to the Appellants will be mitigated by this judgment which allows their appeal on the matter of costs.
- Heading
- Introduction
- Background
- The Appeal
- Submissions by the parties Was Mr Middleton entitled to conduct litigation under the supervision of Mr Ashall?
- Representations from the Law Society and Solicitors Regulation Authority
- Was the learned judge entitled to award costs against the Appellants?
- Discussion
- Was Mr Middleton entitled to conduct litigation under the supervision of Mr Ashall?
- Was the learned judge entitled to award costs against the Appellants?
- Other relief
- Conclusions