CILEX and others v Mazur and others [2026] EWCA Civ 369

The Dispute Resolution team reacts to the landmark Court of Appeal judgment in CILEX and others v Mazur and others [2026] EWCA Civ 369.

In what is widely regarded as the most consequential judgment for legal services in recent history, the Court of Appeal has overturned last year’s High Court decision in Mazur which restricted who could lawfully “conduct litigation”.

The Court of Appeal unanimously held that people working in the legal profession who are not themselves authorised individuals under the Legal Services Act 2007 can lawfully conduct litigation on behalf of authorised individuals under supervision.

The judgment will come as a relief to any organisation which relies on paralegals, trainees, legal executives and foreign-qualified lawyers to undertake litigation work, including local authorities, central government departments and non-profit organisations, as well as law firms.  Equally, it is important for legal professionals not to underestimate the explicit conditions on which the Court has endorsed delegation.

Background

Uncertainty engulfed the legal profession in September 2025 when the High Court found that individuals who are not authorised (or exempt) under the 2007 Act (“unauthorised persons”) could not conduct litigation, even under the supervision of someone authorised (such as a qualified solicitor).

The case originated from a claim for unpaid fees brought by a law firm against their clients, Ms Mazur and Mr Stuart.  That law firm engaged a second firm (specialising in commercial debt recovery) to recover the unpaid fees.  Ms Mazur and Mr Stuart challenged the claim on the basis that the claim form and particulars had been signed by a litigation executive who did not have a practising certificate.

The matter ultimately came before the High Court.  Having received input from the Law Society and the SRA, Sheldon J held that the litigation executive was not entitled to conduct litigation, even under the supervision of a qualified solicitor. The Judge distinguished between supporting (or assisting) an authorised individual in conducting litigation, which he found was permissible, and conducting litigation under the supervision of an authorised individual, which was not.

The decision sent shockwaves through the legal profession as it conflicted with the typical operating model in which routine litigation work is delegated to paralegals, trainees and other “unauthorised persons” in the interests of costs-efficiency.

CILEX, the approved regulator for some 17,500 Chartered Legal Executives, the majority of whom do not have express authorisation to conduct litigation, was granted permission to join the proceedings and appeal the judgment.

What did the Court of Appeal decide?

The key question before the Court of Appeal was whether unauthorised persons are “carrying on the conduct of litigation” (and therefore committing an offence under the 2007 Act) if they do so under the supervision of an authorised individual.  The answer, the Court of Appeal held, is no.  Sir Colin Birss – who gave the leading judgment – held as follows:

• The 2007 Act had not been intended to abolish or curtail the longstanding practice of solicitors delegating tasks amounting to the conduct of litigation to unqualified staff.
• It is not unlawful for an unauthorised person to act for and on behalf of an authorised individual so as to conduct litigation under their supervision, provided appropriate arrangements for supervision and delegation are put in place. In that scenario, it is the authorised individual who is “carrying on” the conduct of the litigation.
• An unauthorised person can lawfully perform any tasks within the scope of the conduct of litigation for and on behalf of an authorised individual and the authorised individual retains responsibility for the tasks delegated to the unauthorised person.
• The delegation of tasks requires “proper management supervision and control”, which “are a matter for the regulators”.
• The degree of supervision and control required depends on the circumstances. Sometimes it will be high, with approval required before things are done.  For routine matters, a lower level of supervision and control may be acceptable – e.g. the authorised individual meeting regularly with the unauthorised person and sampling their work.

There is a cautionary note to the judgment of Lady Justice Andrews, who said the essential question will be “whether the unauthorised person, in carrying out whatever tasks which fall within the scope of ‘conduct of litigation’ have been delegated to him or her, is in truth acting on behalf of the authorised individual”, i.e. this must be genuine delegation under supervision, with the authorised individual retaining responsibility for the work.

Implications of Court of Appeal’s judgment

The judgment provides endorsement of the working practices of many within the legal profession. It has also been celebrated as promoting access to justice and the interests of consumers by facilitating a diverse and competitive legal industry.

Equally, it’s important for those working in litigation – whether in-house or in private practice – to review their supervision arrangements and ensure they meet the standards explicitly set out by the Court of Appeal. The operation of litigation services is likely to remain a focus for the SRA so it will be important that organisations are in a position to demonstrate compliance with these standards.

Looking ahead, we can certainly expect updated guidance to follow from the Law Society and SRA. It is anticipated that in addition to reflecting the Court of Appeal’s judgment, such guidance may go further in stipulating the supervision arrangements that are to be expected.  It is also worth bearing in mind that the judgment might yet still be appealed to the UK Supreme Court.

As things stand, the following practical points should be implemented for now:

• In delegating tasks which constitute the conduct of litigation, authorised individuals should remain genuinely and actively engaged in supervision, retaining responsibility and control of the work.
• The degree of supervision required should be tailored to the specific circumstances, both the nature of the work being delegated and the experience of the unauthorised person. Complex or high-stakes tasks may require prior approval by the authorised individual before anything is done, whereas routine work may permit more general oversight (regular meetings and reviewing samples of work periodically).  The degree of supervision required will naturally differ between a highly-experienced legal executive and a new paralegal who is undertaking a task for the first time.
• Records should be kept of supervision arrangements and evidence of active supervision should be documented on the file.

Finally, it is worth bearing in mind that this applies only to work which constitutes the “conduct of litigation”.  Whilst the Court of Appeal declined to provide an exhaustive list, it identified a number of common tasks which are likely to fall outside the remit – including pre-action work, advising on court proceedings, inter-partes correspondence, gathering evidence, and instructing experts and counsel – meaning there is theoretically no restriction on who can perform such activities.  The impact of this distinction should not be overestimated, though, and it is best practice for supervision arrangements to be in place across the board.

Get in touch

If you would like any further information or need advice, get in touch with our experts today.

George McLellan, Jonathan Blunden, Simon Kiely and Joe Walker are Partners and Olivia Peake is a Senior Professional Support Lawyer at Sharpe Pritchard LLP.

---

For further insight and resources on local government legal issues from Sharpe Pritchard, please visit the SharpeEdge page by clicking on the banner below.

 

 

Visit Sharpe Pritchard's new Building Safety Hub, focusing on The Building Safety Act 2022 and its wide-ranging impact.

This article is for general awareness only and does not constitute legal or professional advice. The law may have changed since this page was first published. If you would like further advice and assistance in relation to any issue raised in this article, please contact us by telephone or email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..