Trinity Civil Pupil, Oliver Tonkinson explores the Court of Appeal’s recent landmark decision in CILEX v Mazur and Others [2026] EWCA Civ 369.
Following on from James McHugh’s previous review of the High Court decision; and Holly Hickin’s subsequent discussion of the possible implications of the Court of Appeal decision, this is the latest article in Trinity Chambers’ series on Mazur,
Introduction
The Court of Appeal’s judgment in Mazur, handed down on 31st March 2026, has been keenly anticipated across the legal profession, particularly in light of recent remarks by the Master of the Rolls, Sir Geoffrey Vos, that every solicitor would be expected to read and understand it.
The primary issue before the Court was whether an unauthorised person was “carrying on the conduct of litigation” (for the purposes of the Legal Services Act 2007) where they performed acts that constituted the conduct of litigation under the supervision of an authorised individual.
Decision
In short, the Court unanimously allowed the appeal. At paragraph 25, Sir Colin Birss clarified that (emphasis added):
“An unauthorised person can 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. The authorised individual is, therefore, the person carrying on the conduct of litigation. The unauthorised person is not carrying on the conduct of litigation and does not commit an offence.”
Sir Colin Birss assessed the construction of the Legal Services Act 2007 in coming to his decision, noting at paragraph 20 that the Act “was not intended to and did not make a significant change” to the previous arrangements, and that “Parliament must be taken to have understood that individual solicitors had, and were regulated in respect of, a widespread practice of delegating litigation work to unqualified individuals”.
At paragraph 29, the Court recognised the “obvious desirability of clarity” moving forwards but held that “it is simply not possible to provide a comprehensive list of all those tasks that fall within and outside of the conduct of litigation”.
Comment
There can be no doubt that this decision marks a decisive victory for CILEX and that it restores the long-established practice of permitting unauthorised persons (including paralegals, trainee solicitors and caseworkers) to carry on the conduct of litigation under supervision.
However, this judgment places heightened emphasis on the standard of supervision required from authorised persons and the organisational frameworks within which such supervision operates. The Court highlighted that the “delegation of tasks by the authorised individual to the unauthorised person requires proper management supervision and control”.
The Court acknowledged that the degree of supervision required will vary depending on the circumstances: “in some circumstances the degree of appropriate control and supervision will be high, with approval required before things are done” but that “in other, for example routine, circumstances, a lower level of control and supervision will be required”.
For many firms with effective and robust supervisory arrangements already in place, this decision will represent a return to 'business as usual'. For others, where such arrangements have been more informal or undocumented, it serves as a timely reminder of the need to ensure that “proper management supervision and control” is provided to unauthorised individuals.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, CILEX’s Chief Executive Jennifer Coupland has referred to the decision as a “common-sense judgment” that marks “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 sector”.