Court of Appeal confirms the High Court got it wrong in Mazur

In a hotly anticipated judgment, the Court of Appeal in Julia Mazur & Others v CILEX & Others [2026] EWCA Civ 369  has confirmed that Mr Justice Sheldon in the High Court got it wrong in Julia Mazur, Jerome Stuart v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB). See our blog on that judgment here. CILEX were not parties to the original proceedings and applied for permission to appeal as interveners, which was granted. CILEX appealed the judgment, but not the order as to costs.

The question to be decided

The question to be decided by the Court of Appeal was the proper meaning of the words “carry on the conduct of litigation” as referred to in the Legal Services Act 2007 (“the LSA”). In particular, it was whether people working in a law firm or law centre, who are not themselves authorised by the LSA, are carrying on the conduct of litigation if they do so under the supervision of an authorised individual.

The Court of Appeal broke this down into three issues:

1. Was the judge right to hold that unauthorised persons were “carrying on the conduct of litigation” if they did acts that constituted the conduct of litigation under the supervision of an authorised individual? (the first issue)
2. What acts actually constitute conducting litigation? (the second issue)
3. Whether the working model adopted by Law Centres (whereby a group of authorised individuals delegate the conduct of litigation to unauthorised persons, whilst supervising their work and retaining ultimate responsibility for it) is contrary to the LSA? (the third issue)

The first issue

All parties except the Legal Services Board submitted that carrying on the conduct of litigation involved directing, controlling and being responsible for tasks within the scope of the conduct of litigation as well as doing the tasks themselves.

CILEX submitted that to “carry on the conduct of litigation” has two dimensions:

1. The performance of the tasks within the ambit of the conduct of litigation;
2. The responsibility for those tasks

CILEX argued that an unauthorised person can perform the tasks for and on behalf of the authorised individual so long as the authorised individual retains responsibility for them. It argued that this approach had been commonplace for a long time, and had been recognised and accepted by the courts. If the judgment of the High Court was correct, it argued that that represented a radical change in the law which did not fit with the purposes for which the LSA was enacted.

CILEX, the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers and the Law Centres Federation trading as the Law Centres Network all produced evidence that the High Court’s judgment had had significant negative effects on them and their members, as well as in relation to access to justice and diversity in the legal profession.

The Court of Appeal concluded that the ordinary meaning of the words “conduct of litigation” refer to tasks to be undertaken, and “carry on” refer to the direction and control of, and responsibility for, those tasks. As such, “carrying on the conduct of litigation” means assuming responsibility for the tasks undertaken. Ultimately, an unauthorised person performing tasks for and on behalf of the authorised individual does not carry on the conduct of litigation as they are not assuming any responsibility for the tasks.

It went on to say that before the LSA, there was a widespread, general and well-regulated practice of delegation by solicitors to unqualified individuals. It was a matter for solicitors to decide what to delegate and did not absolve them of responsibility for the person undertaking that work. This was corroborated by the caselaw. The Court of Appeal concluded that the LSA was not intended to make significant changes to such practices, as Parliament must be taken to have understood that individual solicitors operated a widespread and regulated practice of delegating work undertaken in the conduct of litigation to unqualified staff. It said there is nothing in the words of the LSA itself or the explanatory material which requires an authorised individual to undertake the acts constituting the conduct of litigation personally.

The Court of Appeal concluded that an unauthorised person can 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. As a result, it is the authorised individual who is carrying on the conduct of litigation and not the unauthorised person. It stressed that the delegation of tasks to the unauthorised person requires proper management supervision and control, but the level of supervision and control depends on the tasks undertaken. It is the authorised individual who retains the relevant responsibilities for the task and of their professional duties.

As a result, the role of an unauthorised person in the context of the conduct of litigation is not limited to assisting or supporting an authorised individual. The distinction drawn by the High Court between (a) supporting or assisting and (b) conducting litigation under supervision was not correct. It is not unlawful for an unauthorised person to act for and on behalf of an authorised individual so as to conduct litigation under their supervision provided there are appropriate arrangements in place for the supervision of and delegation to the unauthorised person. This is because in retaining responsibility for the tasks delegated to the unauthorised person, the authorised individual is the person carrying on the conduct of litigation.

The second issue

The Court of Appeal concluded it is not possible to provide a comprehensive list of all those tasks that fall within and outside the conduct of litigation. However, it adopted a list compiled by the Law Society which it agreed was unlikely to fall within the statutory definition of “conduct of litigation”, as follows:

1. Pre-litigation work
2. Giving legal advice in connection with court proceedings
3. Conducting correspondence with the opposing party on behalf of clients
4. Gathering evidence
5. Instructing and liaising with experts and Counsel
6. Signing a statement of truth in respect of a statement of case
7. Signing any other document that the Civil Procedure Rules permits to be signed by a legal representative, as defined by Part 2.3 Civil Procedure Rules

The third issue

The answer to the third issue is the same as the answer to the first issue. The working model adopted by Law Centres is not contrary to the LSA provided there are appropriate arrangements in place for the supervision of and delegation to the unauthorised person by an authorised individual.

As a result, the Court of Appeal allowed CILEX’s appeal.

Therefore Peter Middleton, as the unauthorised person of GBS, did not bear the relevant responsibility of the proceedings and was not carrying on the conduct of litigation. This fell to Mr Ashall, a solicitor and authorised person, who supervised Peter Middleton. As such, Peter Middleton was entitled to perform the work he had undertaken in the proceedings.  This compromised the underlying proceedings between Charles Russell Speechlys LLP and Julia Mazur and Jerome Stuart, but the Court of Appeal did not make a ruling on this point, as the appeal did not centre around the costs order made.

Comment

This judgment will no doubt be a welcome relief for unauthorised law firm employees who, following the High Court judgment, were worried about the viability of their jobs and whether the SRA would take any action against them for work they believed they were allowed to do. The Court of Appeal has confirmed that they are allowed to continue to do such work provided they are properly supervised by an authorised person.

The judgment is also a welcome clarification/confirmation on what work unauthorised employees of law firms can undertake, and restores the long-standing practice of supervised delegation in law firms. This also supports access to justice, especially in Law Centres and criminal defence firms undertaking legal aid work, where they rely on the work of cheaper, unauthorised employees to undertake the bulk of the work on cases in order to retain profitability.

It also highlights the need to have appropriate and effective supervision in place, to ensure that the work undertaken is correct. This does however leave open the risk to authorised persons of unauthorised persons completing tasks incorrectly and the consequences that arise from that, whether that be costs consequences, regulatory intervention or otherwise. Arguably, it is for the authorised person to ensure they have appropriate supervision over the unauthorised person and the tasks they are completing, but in reality in high volume law firms, is that really possible? It is hoped that the Law Society and SRA will provide some clear guidance in terms of what level of supervision will be expected of authorised persons in respect of unauthorised persons undertaking tasks in litigation.

Previous article

Can a Norwich Pharmacal Order compel a newspaper to disclose a source?

Next article

Fare evasion and the Legal Services Act: the unusual case of Govia Thameslink Railway v Charles Brohiri