Mazur After the Court of Appeal: Who Can Conduct Litigation in England and Wales Now

After the Court of Appeal’s judgment in CILEX v Mazur, an unauthorised person can do litigation work in England and Wales. The conditions are that they do it for and on behalf of an authorised individual, and that the authorised individual keeps responsibility for the case. Judgment was handed down on 31 March 2026 as [2026] EWCA Civ 369. It overturned the reasoning of the September 2025 High Court decision that had thrown litigation departments across the country into confusion. Supervision still matters, but the Court of Appeal treated it as a matter for the regulators rather than for the criminal law.

This piece explains what the High Court said and what the Court of Appeal replaced it with. It covers what the SRA, CILEX Regulation and the Legal Services Board have done since, and what firms should now have on file. The facts are taken from the two judgments and the regulators’ own statements.

How did the Mazur case start?

The dispute began as an ordinary fee claim. Charles Russell Speechlys sued two former clients, Mrs Mazur and Mr Stuart, for more than £50,000 in unpaid fees. It used another firm, Goldsmith Bowers Solicitors, to bring the claim. The claim was issued through Money Claims Online, and the particulars were signed by Peter Middleton, described as Head of Commercial Litigation. Mr Middleton did not hold a practising certificate. He had been suspended in 2008, and the SRA had approved his employment under supervision.

The clients argued that a person without authorisation had conducted the litigation. A deputy district judge stayed the claim. On appeal, a circuit judge lifted the stay, relying on a letter from the SRA dated 2 December 2024. That letter said employees could carry out reserved activities because of section 21(3) of the Act. The Court of Appeal later described that SRA letter as wrong in law.

What did the High Court decide in September 2025?

In Mazur and Stuart v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB), handed down on 16 September 2025, Sheldon J adopted a line drawn by the Law Society and the SRA. An unauthorised employee could support an authorised solicitor who was conducting litigation. But an unauthorised employee could not conduct litigation themselves, even under supervision.

He contrasted the Act’s treatment of reserved instrument activities, where Schedule 3 expressly exempts work done under the supervision of another individual. No equivalent exemption exists for litigation. He also held that a firm’s authorisation did not authorise its employees. He did not decide whether Mr Middleton had crossed the line on the facts, and he quashed the costs order below.

Why did the ruling cause so much disruption?

Because a great deal of routine litigation in England and Wales is run day to day by people who are not solicitors or authorised Chartered Legal Executives. Debt recovery, personal injury and volume claims all depend on paralegals and legal executives doing much of the work. After the High Court ruling:

• CILEX said on 24 September 2025 that a Chartered Legal Executive without separate litigation rights “is not authorised to conduct litigation”, and CILEx Regulation moved to apply for standalone litigation rights.
• The Legal Services Board said on 3 October 2025 that the ruling “does not change the law” and began meeting regulators and representative bodies.
• On 5 November 2025 the Courts Minister, Sarah Sackman, said there was a growing case for re-examining the legislative foundations of legal services regulation.
• The Law Society Gazette reported firms sidelining staff or letting them go, and a family court refused to let a legal executive with 20 years’ experience conduct proceedings.

CILEX was not a party at first instance. It obtained permission to appeal as an intervener in late November 2025, supported by APIL and the Law Centres Network. The SRA and the Law Society were respondents, and the Legal Services Board intervened.

What did the Court of Appeal decide?

The appeal was heard on 23, 25 and 26 February 2026 by the Master of the Rolls, Sir Geoffrey Vos, the Chancellor of the High Court, Sir Colin Birss, and Andrews LJ. Judgment was handed down on 31 March 2026. The Chancellor gave the lead judgment. Andrews LJ added a short concurrence and the Master of the Rolls agreed with both. The approved judgment is on the judiciary website.

The appeal was allowed. The court held that the distinction between supporting and conducting litigation under supervision “was not correct” (paragraphs 27 and 187(vii)). It also said it did not find the judge’s result surprising, given the limited help he had been given.

The heart of the judgment is the meaning of the words in the statute. At paragraph 21 the court said:

“The ordinary meaning of the words: ‘conduct of litigation’ refer to the tasks to be undertaken, whilst the words ‘carry on’ refer to direction and control of, and responsibility for, those tasks.”

From that, the rest follows (paragraphs 25 and 187(v)):

• An unauthorised person may lawfully carry out litigation tasks for and on behalf of an authorised individual, such as a solicitor or a CILEX member with litigation rights.
• The authorised individual keeps responsibility, both formally and under the professional principles in section 1(3). They are the person carrying on the reserved activity.
• The unauthorised person commits no offence under section 14.

On supervision, the court rejected the respondents’ position. “The degree of prior approval contended for by the Law Society and SRA is not required by the 2007 Act” (paragraph 25). Supervision must be proportionate. For routine work, regular meetings and sampling may be enough.

There is a limit. Andrews LJ put it plainly at paragraph 198: “if the reality is that the litigation is not being conducted by the unauthorised person for and on behalf of the authorised individual, they will be committing an offence.” A firm that lets a paralegal run a case as their own, with no real authorised person behind it, is still exposed.

Which tasks are unlikely to be “conduct of litigation” at all?

The court recorded common ground that several activities are unlikely to fall within the reserved activity at all (paragraph 193):

• pre-action work
• giving advice
• correspondence
• gathering evidence
• instructing experts and counsel
• signing statements of truth

“Issuing” proceedings was read narrowly, and “ancillary functions” means formal steps such as service. What the court did not settle is how far “commencement, prosecution and defence” of proceedings extends under Schedule 2, paragraph 4(1)(b). It said this “cannot be resolved on this appeal” (paragraphs 191 to 192). That question is still open.

The court also dealt with two older authorities. Baxter v Doble was not wrongly decided but had been misunderstood. It and Ndole concern unauthorised people acting for litigants in person, which is a different situation. Section 14 is to be read narrowly, following Agassi. The Law Centres model, where supervised caseworkers support clients, is lawful on the same principles.

Was the judgment changed after it was handed down?

Yes, in a limited way. A new paragraph 31A was added and paragraphs 25, 27 and 187(vii) were amended, so that supervision is now expressly “a matter of regulation”. Legal Futures reported on 22 April 2026 that this followed a Law Society application seeking a declaration that inadequate supervision could be a criminal offence. The court did not accept that. How good supervision has to be is for the regulators to police, not the criminal courts.

What have the regulators done since?

The LSB’s review is blunt about the system’s own role. It found that a 2022 divergence between CILEx Regulation and the SRA was never resolved. It recorded redeployments, job losses and early retirements that followed the High Court decision. It will now review guidance on the other reserved activities too. CILEX’s response was headlined “You failed too”.

Two numbers are worth keeping straight. CILEX says around 18,000 of its members benefit from the Court of Appeal’s ruling. That is CILEX’s own figure. Separately, the LSB approved CILEx Regulation’s application for standalone litigation rights in October 2025, and more than 1,000 Chartered Legal Executives have since obtained them. We have not found a reliable figure for the number of paralegals affected across the whole sector, and claims of “tens of thousands” should be treated with caution.

Can costs still be challenged because a non-solicitor ran the case?

After the High Court ruling, paying parties began raising Mazur arguments against recoverable costs. The Court of Appeal’s reasoning removes the basis for most of those challenges where work was properly delegated and supervised. A challenge could still succeed where the facts show the unauthorised person was not truly acting for an authorised individual, the situation described at paragraph 198. We are not aware of a reported appellate costs decision applying the new test, so expect first-instance arguments about the quality of supervision records.

What firms should have in place now

1. A named authorised individual on every matter. Record who has conduct of each case and make sure that person can in fact direct and control it.
2. Written delegation and supervision arrangements scaled to risk. Approval in advance for complex or high-stakes steps. Sampling, file reviews and regular meetings for routine work.
3. Records that prove supervision happened. If a costs challenge or an SRA inquiry arrives, the file needs to show the arrangement worked in practice, not just on paper.
4. Checks on individual approvals. Anyone previously struck off or suspended needs SRA approval to be employed, and the conditions of that approval matter.
5. Litigation rights for senior legal executives. Chartered Legal Executives who want to conduct litigation in their own name, rather than on behalf of a solicitor, should obtain litigation rights through CILEx Regulation.
6. A watching brief on the open question. Until “prosecution and defence” is defined, take care over which formal steps unauthorised staff take in their own name.

For readers outside England and Wales, the case is a reminder that reserved activities are defined by statute, and that who may sign, issue and serve can differ sharply between jurisdictions. Students weighing routes into practice can read our guide to becoming a solicitor in the UK without a degree. Open roles are listed on the Legal Desire jobs board.

Frequently asked questions

Did the Court of Appeal overturn Mazur?

Yes. In CILEX v Mazur [2026] EWCA Civ 369, handed down on 31 March 2026, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and held that the High Court’s distinction between supporting and conducting litigation under supervision was not correct.

Can a paralegal issue a claim in England after Mazur?

A paralegal can carry out litigation tasks, including formal steps, for and on behalf of an authorised individual who keeps direction, control and responsibility for the case. The paralegal should not be acting as if the case were their own.

Can CILEX members conduct litigation without practice rights?

They can do litigation tasks on behalf of an authorised individual, as any unauthorised person can. To conduct litigation in their own right they need litigation rights, which CILEx Regulation can now grant on a standalone basis.

Is conducting litigation without authorisation a criminal offence?

Carrying on the conduct of litigation without being authorised or exempt is an offence under section 14 of the Legal Services Act 2007. The Court of Appeal held that a person doing tasks for and on behalf of an authorised individual is not carrying on the activity and commits no offence.

Is supervision still required?

Yes. Supervision must be real and proportionate to the work. How much is enough is a regulatory question, covered by the SRA’s June 2026 guidance and CILEx Regulation’s May 2026 guidance.

Sources

• CILEX and others v Mazur and others [2026] EWCA Civ 369
• Mazur and Stuart v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB)
• Legal Services Act 2007
• SRA, supervision guidance updated, 12 June 2026
• Legal Services Board, conduct of litigation review, 27 July 2026
• CILEX Mazur information hub

Get analysis like this every week in Legal Desire Insider. Firms can share their own commentary through Publish with Legal Desire.