The Court of Appeal handed down their much anticipated Judgment in the matter of CILEX & Ors v Mazur & Ors [2026] EWCA Civ 369 today. 18 St John Street’s Helen Hankey analyses the decision…
Today was the day many legal professionals were waiting for. The Court of Appeal handed down their much anticipated Judgment in the matter of CILEX & Ors v Mazur & Ors [2026] EWCA Civ 369, which sought to address a simple but important question that could have changed the landscape of the legal profession: can individuals not authorised under the Legal Services Act 2007 (unauthorised persons) carry out the conduct of litigation under supervision of authorised individuals?
In the High Court Mr Justice Sheldon held that unauthorised persons who were carrying on the conduct of litigation under supervision of an authorised individual were committing a criminal offence under the Legal Services Act 2007. The Judge distinguished between (a) supporting (or assisting) an authorised solicitor in conducting litigation, and (b) conducting litigation under the supervision of an authorised solicitor and found that an unauthorised person can do (a) and not (b).
Whilst the appeal was surrounding 3 issues, the key issue is whether the Judge was right to hold that unauthorised persons were “carrying on the conduct of litigation” if they did acts that constituted the conduct of litigation under supervision of an authorised individual.
In deciding the issues, the Court of Appeal heard submissions from interveners and interested bodies, including CILEX, the Law Centres Network and APIL. Today, the Court of Appeal upheld the appeal.
Paragraph 187 of the Judgment provides much needed clarity in respect of this issue:
“An unauthorised person may 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, provided the authorised individual retains responsibility for the tasks delegated to the unauthorised person (both formal responsibility and the responsibilities identified at section 1(3) of the 2007 Act). In that situation, the authorised individual is the person carrying on the conduct of litigation.”
The Judgment set out however that delegation of the tasks requires proper direction, management, supervision and control, the details of which are a matter for the regulators.
It was held it was not possible to provide a comprehensive list of all tasks that fall within and outside of the conduct of litigation; however, this Judgment provided some guidance as to activities that are unlikely to fall within the statutory definition of “conduct of litigation” at paragraph 193.
This Judgment provides some much needed clarity (and I am sure relief) for the legal landscape and has likely prevented much satellite litigation on this topic alone.
A copy of the Judgment can be found below.
31st March 2026
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/Mazur.APPROVEDJUDGMENTS.1.pdf
Helen Hankey Edwards is a member of the Personal Injury, Clinical Negligence and Costs Department at 18 St John Street Chambers. For more information contact Senior PI Clerk Katie Brown on 0161 278 8261