The much-awaited Judgment in the case of Mazur and others [2026] EWCA Civ 369 was handed down yesterday and provides guidance and clarity to those involved in litigation. CILEX’s appeal against the decision of Sheldon J was allowed.
As a reminder, the case began as a costs dispute regarding the actions of an unauthorised employee at a law firm, Mr Middleton, who did not hold a practising certificate. The case snowballed into one of the most significant regulatory cases, concerning the interpretation of the Legal Services Act 2007 (the Act).
The appeal considered which individuals could “carry on the conduct of litigation” as used in the Act. The question for the Court centred on whether people working in a law firm or law centre, and who are not authorised under the Act, are carrying on the conduct of litigation if they do so under the supervision of an authorised individual.
The consequences of falling foul of the Act carried criminal sanctions. In the original decision, Sheldon J distinguished between an unauthorised person: (a) supporting (or assisting) an authorised solicitor in conducting litigation and (b) conducting litigation under the supervision of an authorised solicitor (or any authorised individual). The Court of Appeal ruled that this distinction was incorrect.
The key takeaway is that an unauthorised person can conduct litigation if supervised by an authorised individual. This analysis ensures that unauthorised persons are not limited to just assisting or supporting authorised individuals, thus disagreeing with Sheldon J’s original decision.
So, what will this mean in practice? Solicitors and authorised individuals can delegate tasks to unauthorised persons under certain conditions. Principally, there must be an appropriate arrangement of supervision and delegation in place. The Court has stated that enforcement of this condition is a regulatory matter in which it will not interfere. Responsibility for the task remains with the authorised individual.
The Court of Appeal confirmed its interpretation of “conduct of litigation” as relating to the task undertaken. The words “carry on” refer to the direction and control of those tasks.
Put simply, an unauthorised person can conduct litigation (on behalf of an authorised individual) but cannot retain direction and control or responsibility for those tasks. This is an important distinction to observe.
Paragraph 10 of the Judgment summary provides perhaps the most useful guidance. It confirms:
“An unauthorised person can, therefore, lawfully perform any tasks, which are within the scope of the conduct of litigation, for and on behalf of an authorised individual such as a solicitor or appropriately authorised CILEX member. The authorised individual retains responsibility for the tasks delegated to the unauthorised person”
The Court of Appeal also clarified seven acts that were unlikely to fall within the definition of “conduct of litigation”. These tasks can be carried out without requiring an authorised individual to delegate or supervise them. The tasks are:
1. Pre-litigation work;
2. Giving legal advice in connection with court proceedings;
3. Conducting correspondence with opponents on behalf of clients;
4. Gathering evidence;
5. Signing a statement of truth in respect of a statement of case;
6. Instructing and liaising with experts and counsel; and
7. Signing any other document that the CPR permits to be signed by a legal representative (examples would include Particulars of Claim, a Reply to the Defence, and Part 18 Responses).
The Judgment is welcome. It provides clarity over tasks that unauthorised staff can perform whilst supervised. It provides examples of tasks which do not require an authorised individual to delegate or supervise.
Alum Ullah, Bond Turner
Vice President of Liverpool Law Society [POSTED on 01/04/26]