DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 91841--------------------------------------------------
Why the recent High Court appellate case of Mazur is very
relevant to all cases we deal with here
DIR By: b789
Date: September 28, 2025, 11:28 am
---------------------------------------------------------
What the High Court has decided in Mazur & Anor v Charles
Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB)
HTML https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/KB/2025/2341.html,
in plain
English:
Only people who are authorised (for example, a solicitor with a
current practising certificate) or who fall within a statutory
exemption are allowed to conduct litigation. Conducting
litigation means issuing and running court proceedings and the
key ancillary steps. Being unqualified but supervised by a
solicitor does not make it lawful to run a case. Supervision
does not confer the right to conduct litigation.
If an unauthorised person conducts litigation, that is a
criminal offence for the individual. It can also be a criminal
offence for the law firm if the offence is committed by its
employee while carrying on the firm’s litigation work. Beyond
the criminal aspect, the court can refuse the firm its costs
and, in some cases, strike out the claim.
The judgment does not change the law. It confirms what the Legal
Services Act 2007 has always required since it came into force.
Before that Act, unqualified staff in a firm could, under
supervision, conduct litigation. Since the Act, they cannot.
Cases concluded before the Act are unaffected.
In this case, the defendants (Mazur and Stuart) challenged steps
taken by a firm’s “Head of Commercial Litigation” who did not
hold a practising certificate. A deputy district judge stayed
the claim and required the firm either to fix the problem or
face strike out. A circuit judge later lifted the stay once a
qualified solicitor had taken over and ordered the defendants to
pay £10,653 in costs. On appeal, the High Court held that the
unqualified person had not been entitled to conduct litigation
even under supervision. The court also held that the circuit
judge’s reliance on an SRA letter implying that supervised
conduct was permitted was wrong in law. The costs order was
varied to no order for costs. The High Court added that, even if
costs had been appropriate, this was an Intermediate Track fixed
costs situation where only £333 plus the court fee of £303 could
have been awarded.
The court invited and heard submissions from the Law Society and
the SRA. Both confirmed the correct position: non-authorised
staff may support an authorised solicitor with litigation,
sometimes to a significant degree, but they cannot themselves be
the person conducting litigation, even if a solicitor oversees
them. Who is “conducting” the litigation turns on substance: who
has assumed responsibility and exercises professional judgment
on litigation decisions.
Practical effects. Law firms must ensure that the individual who
signs core court documents and makes litigation decisions is
personally authorised (or exempt). Non-qualified staff can
assist but cannot “run” a case. If an unauthorised person has
conducted litigation, the firm risks losing its costs, facing
strike-out issues, and exposure to criminal liability. Because
this judgment states what the law has always been since 2007,
some past and ongoing cases may be open to challenge where
unauthorised staff effectively ran the litigation.
#Post#: 93134--------------------------------------------------
Re: Why the recent High Court appellate case of Mazur is very
relevant to all cases we deal with here
DIR By: roythebus
Date: October 6, 2025, 2:59 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
In simple terms, how does this affect the likes of the good
people on here who assist in a lot of the PCN cases we read of
on here?
#Post#: 93136--------------------------------------------------
Re: Why the recent High Court appellate case of Mazur is very
relevant to all cases we deal with here
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: October 6, 2025, 3:05 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
In a lot of the cases we see, the bulk litigation firms managing
the cases are potentially acting contrary to this ruling. As an
example. it's fairly common to see witness statements written by
a paralegal at one of said firms, that begins with a statement
such as "I am a paralegel at [law firm] and I have conduct of
this case". At face value, that would seem to be an unauthorised
person conducting litigation.
#Post#: 96918--------------------------------------------------
Re: Why the recent High Court appellate case of Mazur is very
relevant to all cases we deal with here
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: November 5, 2025, 10:02 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Quick question;
Does the issuing of a Letter Before Claim fall come under the
banner of 'conducting litigation'?
There seems to be more and more LBCs which are not signed by an
individual - ie just signed off as 'XXX Legal Services' etc.
#Post#: 96943--------------------------------------------------
Re: Why the recent High Court appellate case of Mazur is very
relevant to all cases we deal with here
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: November 5, 2025, 11:53 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: InterCity125 link ---
>
> Does the issuing of a Letter Before Claim fall come under the
banner of 'conducting litigation'?
>
--- End Quote ---
I'd say not. Schedule 2 of the Legal Services Act (2007) defines
"conduct of litigation" for the purposes of the Act:
[indent]4(1)The “conduct of litigation” means—
(a)the issuing of proceedings before any court in England and
Wales,
(b)the commencement, prosecution and defence of such
proceedings, and
(c)the performance of any ancillary functions in relation to
such proceedings (such as entering appearances to
actions).[/indent]
A Letter of Claim is issued before proceedings are
issued/commenced.
#Post#: 96970--------------------------------------------------
Re: Why the recent High Court appellate case of Mazur is very
relevant to all cases we deal with here
DIR By: b789
Date: November 5, 2025, 2:05 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Agreed.anLoC is "pre-litigation" correspondence, therefore not
classed as conduct of litigation. However, and LoC must comply
with the PAPDC and failure to do so can be reported to the SRA.
This is why we always provide a template response that points
this out and any defendant can then make a formal complaint to
the SRA if the LoC or subsequent responses fail to comply.
#Post#: 111161--------------------------------------------------
Re: Why the recent High Court appellate case of Mazur is very
relevant to all cases we deal with here
DIR By: Jackisback123
Date: February 25, 2026, 1:58 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
It's worth noting that this is being appealed this week!
HTML https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/mazur-day-two-law-society-to-urge-court-to-reject-cilex-appeal/5126006.article
#Post#: 111391--------------------------------------------------
Re: Why the recent High Court appellate case of Mazur is very
relevant to all cases we deal with here
DIR By: Brenda_R2
Date: February 27, 2026, 10:26 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: roythebus link ---
>
> In simple terms, how does this affect the likes of the good
people on here who assist in a lot of the PCN cases we read of
on here?
>
--- End Quote ---
It doesn’t apply.
Contributors here are not conducting litigation — they don’t
file documents, communicate with the court, or act on anyone’s
behalf.
They provide information and guidance, which is entirely lawful
for any individual to do.
In a corporate environment they would probably be regarded as
subject‑matter experts rather than representatives.
#Post#: 114953--------------------------------------------------
Re: Why the recent High Court appellate case of Mazur is very
relevant to all cases we deal with here
DIR By: Jackisback123
Date: March 31, 2026, 11:21 am
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/as-it-happened-mazur-judgment-cilex-wins-appeal/5126371.article
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1