Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys: what it means for litigators

The Court of Appeal judgment

The Court of Appeal has handed down its judgment in the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives (CILEX) v Mazur and others [2026] EWCA Civ 369.

Law Society of England and Wales vice president, Brett Dixon, said: “All the parties to the proceedings before the Court of Appeal were there to seek clarity for practitioners and consumers of legal services with disputes.”

“While the court did not accept all of the Law Society’s points, its judgment provides an outline framework for those involved in litigation to use in assessing whether supervision is adequate and lawful.

“The judgment confirms the continuing importance of supervision being in place, which will require further regulatory guidance.

“In light of the judgment, we are updating our guidance and practice note to ensure it aligns with the ruling.

“We will also be working with other legal bodies including CILEX, the Solicitors Regulation Authority and the Legal Services Board to continue to support the profession.”

The High Court decision

In Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys [2025] EWHC 2341, defendants to a debt claim acting in person sought a direction that the individual acting for the claimants be replaced by a qualified solicitor.

A stay was imposed and later lifted with a costs order made against the defendants.

The defendants appealed against that costs order on the basis that the judge making it had been wrong in deciding that the individual conducting the litigation for the claimants had been entitled to do so.

The Administrative Court restated the position in the LSA 2007 and the SRA’s 2022 guidance on effective supervision that even within a regulated entity, only an “authorised person” may “conduct” litigation.

Non-authorised staff cannot carry on the reserved legal activity of the conduct of litigation simply by being an employee or an authorised firm.

Both the firm and the person carrying on the activity must be authorised.

Whilst affirming those principles, the court did not decide that the conduct of the specific litigation giving rise to the appeal had been unlawful.

Nor did it identify any particular working practices which would generally be considered lawful or unlawful.

It was recognised that any such decision would depend on fact and degree in individual cases.

Next steps

We are:

• updating our practice note to reflect what you need to take into account following the Court of Appeal judgment
• arranging a webinar to give members an opportunity to raise any questions they have about what this means for you
• speaking to the SRA about the guidance the profession will need from them
• liaising with CILEx to ensure a consistent approach across the professions