The Mazur Appeal and the Future of Litigation

On 31 March 2026, the Court of Appeal handed down its long-awaited judgment in CILEX & Others v Mazur & Others [2026] EWCA Civ 369.

In allowing CILEX’s appeal, the Court of Appeal ruled that an unauthorised person can lawfully conduct litigation if they do so under the supervision of an authorised individual. The judgment has provided much needed clarity surrounding the conduct of litigation by non-authorised legal professionals.

Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] and the CILEX Appeal

The appeal by CILEX followed the High Court’s decision in Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341.

Putting an end to decades of standard practice, the High Court held that only an “authorised person” could conduct litigation. This meant that individuals who were not authorised (such as trainee solicitors, paralegals, or legal executives) could not conduct litigation, even if supervised by an authorised person. The court tried to draw a clear distinction between assisting in the conduct of litigation and conducting the litigation itself.

Mazur meant that only authorised individuals, such as qualified solicitors with current practising certificates, or barristers (as a non-exhaustive list), could conduct litigation.

The High Court’s decision threw the legal industry into chaos, leaving many unauthorised individuals questioning whether their roles would become obsolete.

In response, an appeal was brought by CILEX due to the concerns that the judgment would have on law firms and unauthorised individuals, particularly CILEX members.

The Court of Appeal Decision

The judgment handed down by the Court of Appeal on 31 March 2026 put an end to a period of confusion and concern.

The Court of Appeal reversed the decision of the High Court and conclusively confirmed that an unauthorised individual could lawfully conduct litigation provided they were properly supervised by an authorised individual. The Court confirmed that the Legal Services Act 2007 was not intended to disrupt the established approach of delegation of litigation tasks.

The Court went on to state:

“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.”

Whilst appropriate supervision remains key to safeguarding clients, this decision indicates a return to the status quo and is welcome news for the legal profession as a whole.

What are the Implications of the Appeal?

Whilst the Court of Appeal provided much needed clarity, Mazur cannot be completely forgotten. Unauthorised individuals are still required to be properly supervised by an authorised individual, but what this supervision entails will depend on the circumstances and the regulatory bodies.

It is important to note that the Court did not produce a list of which acts constitute conducting litigation, which they recognised as highly case sensitive. The ultimate responsibility falls on the authorised individual to ensure appropriate supervision safeguards are in place.

The Court of Appeal’s decision will no doubt impact how both authorised and non-authorised individuals approach conducting litigation moving forward.

Conclusion

The clarity the judgment has provided is much needed and many legal professionals feel that the position pre-Mazur has been restored.

In a statement following the judgment, CILEX Chief Executive, Jennifer Coupland said that “this is the most consequential judgment for legal services in recent history: it is a victory for CILEX members but also for access to justice, the interests of consumers and the encouragement of a thriving, diverse and competitive legal industry.”

With the Court stressing the importance of supervision by authorised individuals, it remains to be seen what (if any) additional guidance on supervision the Solicitors Regulatory Authority and other regulators may provide.