lawrota.com

In a startling revelation, crisis-laden Sheffield firm SSB Law faced severe censure from Leeds County Court just months before succumbing to administration. The judgment, delivered in July, highlighted the firm’s underestimation of cavity wall insulation claims, delayed payment of court fees, and the use of an expert witness with questionable independence. Despite the harsh criticism, the court allowed the represented cavity wall claimants to proceed with their cases, albeit with caveats and cost sanctions.

The tumultuous journey of SSB Law took a darker turn as Leeds County Court issued a scathing judgment in July, unraveling multiple instances of an abuse of court process. The firm, on record for 1,428 litigated claims as of April, faced allegations of undervaluing cavity wall insulation claims, delaying correct court fee payments, and utilizing an expert witness with compromised independence.

District Judge Dawson, while highly critical of SSB’s conduct, opted not to penalize the claimants, allowing their cases to continue under certain conditions. The fate of these claims remains uncertain as the firm seeks administrators and a potential buyer for its work in progress.

The court discovered that SSB had initially declared a value of up to £10,000 for each claim, resulting in a set court fee of £455. However, amended claims forms, filed months later, revised the estimated claim values to a much higher range of £83,000 to £104,000. Shockingly, none of the increased fees was paid, leading to an average underpayment of £4,179 per case and a total shortfall of almost £600,000.

The judge criticized this abuse of process, emphasizing the significant delay in fee payment and the strain on court resources. SSB attributed the lapse to a single fee earner, claiming it was not a deliberate or systematic abuse. However, the unqualified litigation executive in question failed to pay or proffer increased fees in 88% of her cases.

Concerns were also raised about expert evidence provided by Charles Millar in three of the four test cases. Millar’s alleged lack of independence, stemming from financial interests connected to the case, drew the court’s ire. SSB’s defense of Millar was dismissed as “erroneous or disingenuous,” with the judge mandating the firm to seek fresh expert evidence urgently.

The court’s conclusion deemed SSB’s reliance on Millar’s evidence as an abuse of the court’s process, emphasizing the need for the claimants’ solicitors to evaluate potential mismanagement. SSB was directed to obtain new reports within three months and was ordered to pay costs related to abuse of process applications, while being barred from recovering costs incurred at the claim’s issuance.

source: Revealed: Stricken Sheffield firm SSB Law avoided court fees by understating claims | Law Gazette

#LegalIssues #SSBLaw #CourtCriticism #AbuseOfProcess #LegalMismanagement #CrisisInLawFirms #LegalNews #LitigationWoes #CourtJudgment #LegalDrama