Following on from James McHugh's review of the High Court decision in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP, Trinity Business and Property barrister, Holly Hickin explores the possible implications of the much anticipated Court of Appeal decision following last week's hearing.
The Appeal was brought by the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives (CILEX) who were represented by Nicholas Bacon K.C. who argued that Mr Justice Sheldon did not focus on the distinction between the tasks of litigation and responsibility for conducting it and that distinction underpins the case. He submitted that authorised individuals can delegate tasks but must retain responsibility and accountability.
In support of the Appeal, the Court heard from the Association for Personal Injury Lawyers and Law Centres Network. The Law Society, Solicitors Regulation Authority and Julia Mazur argued that the High Court decision should be upheld.
Julia Mazur, representing herself, told the Court that she never wanted to be involved in the hearing and that the case was never about the conduct of a legal executive, but rather a former Solicitor who had been conducting litigation, despite being indefinitely suspended from practice. She also expressed criticism of the SRA, explaining that they had previously taken the stance that the ‘unauthorised person’ involved in her case was permitted to conduct litigation, the SRA then abandoned that position when the case came before the High Court and as we know, the SRA were invited to intervene.
As expected, the Court of Appeal judgment was reserved, with no indication from the Master of the Rolls as to when judgment will be handed down. However, Sir Geoffrey Vos has acknowledged that “people need to understand” and hoped that the judgment will achieve clarity, remarking that every Solicitor will be expected to read it.
It is understood that the Legal Services Board are to conduct a regulatory review following the judgment, which will aim to establish:-
- What happened in the past, and
- How approved regulators and regulatory bodies ensured that information on conducting litigation was accurate and reliable.
One thing is for certain, clarity is welcomed by all in the profession, it is just a question of what such clarity will look like in the wake of Mazur.