In one of the most highly anticipated appeals of the year, the Court of Appeal has overturned the High Court and ruled that unauthorised persons are allowed to conduct litigation if supervised by an authorised individual.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n
This case had its origins in litigation between Mrs Mazur and Mr Stuart and Charles Russells Speechlys (CRS). CRS had done some legal work for Mazur and Stuart and was pursuing a claim for unpaid fees to the tune of \u00a350,000. CRS engaged law firm Goldsmith Bowers to recover these fees. Peter Middleton, head of commercial litigation at GBS, who signed the Particulars of Claim did not hold a practising certificate. Accordingly, Mrs Mazur and Mr Stuart made an application that Mr. Middleton was practising unlawfully and thus the claim should be struck out. After proceedings in the district court, an appeal was made to the High Court and, on the 16th of September 2025 the judge ruled that unqualified staff were not permitted to \u201cconduct litigation<\/em>\u201d and that the authorisation of an employer did not authorise an employee to conduct litigation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n This decision, described as \u2018earth-shattering\u2019 in the legal press, had wide implications for a large number of solicitors\u2019 firms, and ran counter to advice previously provided by the SRA. Large swathes of the legal profession were supported by unauthorised individuals who conducted litigation under the supervision of regulated individuals. The Chartered Institute of Legal Executives (CILEX) whose members were at risk due to this decision, applied to the High Court for permission to appeal, which was granted. The question on appeal was whether unauthorised persons were permitted to take part in litigation under the supervision of an authorised person at all, and what acts constituted \u201ccarry[ing] on conduct of litigation<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The court found that there was a long tradition of unauthorised individuals assisting authorised persons in the conduct of litigation dating back to Victorian times. The court held that the 2007 Legal Services Act, which aimed at increasing access to justice (among other goals), did not intend to or meaningfully effect changes to the earlier Courts and Legal Servicing Act of 1990. The court also ruled that the ordinary meaning of the phrase \u201cconduct of litigation<\/em>\u201d referred to the \u201ctasks undertaken<\/em>\u201d whereas \u201ccarry on<\/em>\u201d refers to responsibility for these tasks. Thus, the court ruled that an \u201cunauthorised person could lawfully conduct litigation<\/em>\u201d under the supervision of an authorised person. This conduct need not be restricted to the assistance of an authorised person, but could, if the requisite arrangements for supervision were put in place, involve the unauthorised person acting for and on behalf of the authorised person.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The court also discussed which acts constituted conducting litigation. Whilst it refrained from attempting an exhaustive list, the court listed seven steps of common ground between the appellants that were unlikely to fall foul of the rules against unauthorised people conducting litigation: \u201c(i) pre-litigation work, (ii) giving legal advice in connection with court proceedings, (iii) conducting correspondence with the opposing party on behalf of clients, (iv) gathering evidence, (v) instructing and liaising with experts and counsel, (vi) signing a statement of truth in respect of a statement of case, and (vii) signing any other document that the CPR permits to be signed by a legal representative, as defined by CPR Part 2.3.<\/em>\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n A number of Chambers ranked individuals appeared in the case. Click here to see our Costs Litigation<\/a> table and our Professional Negligence<\/a> table.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Claimants, Mrs Mazur and Mr Stuart, appeared in person.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Defendants\/Respondents, CRS, did not appear.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Respondents, the SRA and Law Society, were represented by Tom Lowenthal of Blackstone Chambers (SRA) and Richard Coleman KC<\/a> and Marianne Butler<\/a> of Fountain Court Chambers (Law Society).<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Appellant and Intervener, CILEX, was represented by Nicholas Bacon KC<\/a>, Helen Evans KC<\/a>, Teen Jui Chow and Faye Metcalfe of 4 New Square Chambers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Interveners, the Legal Services Board (LSB), Law Centres Network (LCN) and the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL), were represented by Tim Johnston of Brick Court Chambers (the LSB), PJ Kirby KC<\/a> and James Hall<\/a> of Gatehouse Chambers (the LCN) and Benjamin Williams KC<\/a>, Matthew Waszak<\/a> and Theo Barclay<\/a> of 4 New Square (APIL).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"template":"","categories":[],"tags":[],"publication":[],"blocks":[{"blockName":"core\/paragraph","attrs":[],"innerBlocks":[],"innerHTML":"\n In one of the most highly anticipated appeals of the year, the Court of Appeal has overturned the High Court and ruled that unauthorised persons are allowed to conduct litigation if supervised by an authorised individual.<\/p>\n","innerContent":["\n In one of the most highly anticipated appeals of the year, the Court of Appeal has overturned the High Court and ruled that unauthorised persons are allowed to conduct litigation if supervised by an authorised individual.<\/p>\n"]},{"blockName":null,"attrs":[],"innerBlocks":[],"innerHTML":"\n\n","innerContent":["\n\n"]},{"blockName":"lazyblock\/chambers-header","attrs":{"header":"The background","headerLevel":"2","blockId":"Z1MHxQD","blockUniqueClass":"lazyblock-chambers-header-Z1MHxQD"},"innerBlocks":[],"innerHTML":"","innerContent":[]},{"blockName":null,"attrs":[],"innerBlocks":[],"innerHTML":"\n\n","innerContent":["\n\n"]},{"blockName":"core\/paragraph","attrs":[],"innerBlocks":[],"innerHTML":"\n This case had its origins in litigation between Mrs Mazur and Mr Stuart and Charles Russells Speechlys (CRS). CRS had done some legal work for Mazur and Stuart and was pursuing a claim for unpaid fees to the tune of \u00a350,000. CRS engaged law firm Goldsmith Bowers to recover these fees. Peter Middleton, head of commercial litigation at GBS, who signed the Particulars of Claim did not hold a practising certificate. Accordingly, Mrs Mazur and Mr Stuart made an application that Mr. Middleton was practising unlawfully and thus the claim should be struck out. After proceedings in the district court, an appeal was made to the High Court and, on the 16th of September 2025 the judge ruled that unqualified staff were not permitted to \u201cconduct litigation<\/em>\u201d and that the authorisation of an employer did not authorise an employee to conduct litigation.<\/p>\n","innerContent":["\n This case had its origins in litigation between Mrs Mazur and Mr Stuart and Charles Russells Speechlys (CRS). CRS had done some legal work for Mazur and Stuart and was pursuing a claim for unpaid fees to the tune of \u00a350,000. CRS engaged law firm Goldsmith Bowers to recover these fees. Peter Middleton, head of commercial litigation at GBS, who signed the Particulars of Claim did not hold a practising certificate. Accordingly, Mrs Mazur and Mr Stuart made an application that Mr. Middleton was practising unlawfully and thus the claim should be struck out. After proceedings in the district court, an appeal was made to the High Court and, on the 16th of September 2025 the judge ruled that unqualified staff were not permitted to \u201cconduct litigation<\/em>\u201d and that the authorisation of an employer did not authorise an employee to conduct litigation.<\/p>\n"]},{"blockName":null,"attrs":[],"innerBlocks":[],"innerHTML":"\n\n","innerContent":["\n\n"]},{"blockName":"lazyblock\/chambers-header","attrs":{"header":"The appeal","headerLevel":"2","blockId":"12AjEh","blockUniqueClass":"lazyblock-chambers-header-12AjEh"},"innerBlocks":[],"innerHTML":"","innerContent":[]},{"blockName":null,"attrs":[],"innerBlocks":[],"innerHTML":"\n\n","innerContent":["\n\n"]},{"blockName":"core\/paragraph","attrs":[],"innerBlocks":[],"innerHTML":"\n This decision, described as \u2018earth-shattering\u2019 in the legal press, had wide implications for a large number of solicitors\u2019 firms, and ran counter to advice previously provided by the SRA. Large swathes of the legal profession were supported by unauthorised individuals who conducted litigation under the supervision of regulated individuals. The Chartered Institute of Legal Executives (CILEX) whose members were at risk due to this decision, applied to the High Court for permission to appeal, which was granted. The question on appeal was whether unauthorised persons were permitted to take part in litigation under the supervision of an authorised person at all, and what acts constituted \u201ccarry[ing] on conduct of litigation<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n","innerContent":["\n This decision, described as \u2018earth-shattering\u2019 in the legal press, had wide implications for a large number of solicitors\u2019 firms, and ran counter to advice previously provided by the SRA. Large swathes of the legal profession were supported by unauthorised individuals who conducted litigation under the supervision of regulated individuals. The Chartered Institute of Legal Executives (CILEX) whose members were at risk due to this decision, applied to the High Court for permission to appeal, which was granted. The question on appeal was whether unauthorised persons were permitted to take part in litigation under the supervision of an authorised person at all, and what acts constituted \u201ccarry[ing] on conduct of litigation<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n"]},{"blockName":null,"attrs":[],"innerBlocks":[],"innerHTML":"\n\n","innerContent":["\n\n"]},{"blockName":"core\/paragraph","attrs":[],"innerBlocks":[],"innerHTML":"\n The court found that there was a long tradition of unauthorised individuals assisting authorised persons in the conduct of litigation dating back to Victorian times. The court held that the 2007 Legal Services Act, which aimed at increasing access to justice (among other goals), did not intend to or meaningfully effect changes to the earlier Courts and Legal Servicing Act of 1990. The court also ruled that the ordinary meaning of the phrase \u201cconduct of litigation<\/em>\u201d referred to the \u201ctasks undertaken<\/em>\u201d whereas \u201ccarry on<\/em>\u201d refers to responsibility for these tasks. Thus, the court ruled that an \u201cunauthorised person could lawfully conduct litigation<\/em>\u201d under the supervision of an authorised person. This conduct need not be restricted to the assistance of an authorised person, but could, if the requisite arrangements for supervision were put in place, involve the unauthorised person acting for and on behalf of the authorised person.<\/p>\n","innerContent":["\n The court found that there was a long tradition of unauthorised individuals assisting authorised persons in the conduct of litigation dating back to Victorian times. The court held that the 2007 Legal Services Act, which aimed at increasing access to justice (among other goals), did not intend to or meaningfully effect changes to the earlier Courts and Legal Servicing Act of 1990. The court also ruled that the ordinary meaning of the phrase \u201cconduct of litigation<\/em>\u201d referred to the \u201ctasks undertaken<\/em>\u201d whereas \u201ccarry on<\/em>\u201d refers to responsibility for these tasks. Thus, the court ruled that an \u201cunauthorised person could lawfully conduct litigation<\/em>\u201d under the supervision of an authorised person. This conduct need not be restricted to the assistance of an authorised person, but could, if the requisite arrangements for supervision were put in place, involve the unauthorised person acting for and on behalf of the authorised person.<\/p>\n"]},{"blockName":null,"attrs":[],"innerBlocks":[],"innerHTML":"\n\n","innerContent":["\n\n"]},{"blockName":"core\/paragraph","attrs":[],"innerBlocks":[],"innerHTML":"\n The court also discussed which acts constituted conducting litigation. Whilst it refrained from attempting an exhaustive list, the court listed seven steps of common ground between the appellants that were unlikely to fall foul of the rules against unauthorised people conducting litigation: \u201c(i) pre-litigation work, (ii) giving legal advice in connection with court proceedings, (iii) conducting correspondence with the opposing party on behalf of clients, (iv) gathering evidence, (v) instructing and liaising with experts and counsel, (vi) signing a statement of truth in respect of a statement of case, and (vii) signing any other document that the CPR permits to be signed by a legal representative, as defined by CPR Part 2.3.<\/em>\u201d<\/p>\n","innerContent":["\n The court also discussed which acts constituted conducting litigation. Whilst it refrained from attempting an exhaustive list, the court listed seven steps of common ground between the appellants that were unlikely to fall foul of the rules against unauthorised people conducting litigation: \u201c(i) pre-litigation work, (ii) giving legal advice in connection with court proceedings, (iii) conducting correspondence with the opposing party on behalf of clients, (iv) gathering evidence, (v) instructing and liaising with experts and counsel, (vi) signing a statement of truth in respect of a statement of case, and (vii) signing any other document that the CPR permits to be signed by a legal representative, as defined by CPR Part 2.3.<\/em>\u201d<\/p>\n"]},{"blockName":null,"attrs":[],"innerBlocks":[],"innerHTML":"\n\n","innerContent":["\n\n"]},{"blockName":"lazyblock\/chambers-header","attrs":{"header":"The Parties","headerLevel":"2","blockId":"ZMrDj1","blockUniqueClass":"lazyblock-chambers-header-ZMrDj1"},"innerBlocks":[],"innerHTML":"","innerContent":[]},{"blockName":null,"attrs":[],"innerBlocks":[],"innerHTML":"\n\n","innerContent":["\n\n"]},{"blockName":"core\/paragraph","attrs":[],"innerBlocks":[],"innerHTML":"\n A number of Chambers ranked individuals appeared in the case. Click here to see our Costs Litigation<\/a> table and our Professional Negligence<\/a> table.<\/p>\n","innerContent":["\n A number of Chambers ranked individuals appeared in the case. Click here to see our Costs Litigation<\/a> table and our Professional Negligence<\/a> table.<\/p>\n"]},{"blockName":null,"attrs":[],"innerBlocks":[],"innerHTML":"\n\n","innerContent":["\n\n"]},{"blockName":"core\/paragraph","attrs":[],"innerBlocks":[],"innerHTML":"\n The Claimants, Mrs Mazur and Mr Stuart, appeared in person.<\/p>\n","innerContent":["\n The Claimants, Mrs Mazur and Mr Stuart, appeared in person.<\/p>\n"]},{"blockName":null,"attrs":[],"innerBlocks":[],"innerHTML":"\n\n","innerContent":["\n\n"]},{"blockName":"core\/paragraph","attrs":[],"innerBlocks":[],"innerHTML":"\n The Defendants\/Respondents, CRS, did not appear.<\/p>\n","innerContent":["\n The Defendants\/Respondents, CRS, did not appear.<\/p>\n"]},{"blockName":null,"attrs":[],"innerBlocks":[],"innerHTML":"\n\n","innerContent":["\n\n"]},{"blockName":"core\/paragraph","attrs":[],"innerBlocks":[],"innerHTML":"\n The Respondents, the SRA and Law Society, were represented by Tom Lowenthal of Blackstone Chambers (SRA) and Richard Coleman KC<\/a> and Marianne Butler<\/a> of Fountain Court Chambers (Law Society).<\/p>\n","innerContent":["\n The Respondents, the SRA and Law Society, were represented by Tom Lowenthal of Blackstone Chambers (SRA) and Richard Coleman KC<\/a> and Marianne Butler<\/a> of Fountain Court Chambers (Law Society).<\/p>\n"]},{"blockName":null,"attrs":[],"innerBlocks":[],"innerHTML":"\n\n","innerContent":["\n\n"]},{"blockName":"core\/paragraph","attrs":[],"innerBlocks":[],"innerHTML":"\n The Appellant and Intervener, CILEX, was represented by Nicholas Bacon KC<\/a>, Helen Evans KC<\/a>, Teen Jui Chow and Faye Metcalfe of 4 New Square Chambers.<\/p>\n","innerContent":["\n The Appellant and Intervener, CILEX, was represented by Nicholas Bacon KC<\/a>, Helen Evans KC<\/a>, Teen Jui Chow and Faye Metcalfe of 4 New Square Chambers.<\/p>\n"]},{"blockName":null,"attrs":[],"innerBlocks":[],"innerHTML":"\n\n","innerContent":["\n\n"]},{"blockName":"core\/paragraph","attrs":[],"innerBlocks":[],"innerHTML":"\n The Interveners, the Legal Services Board (LSB), Law Centres Network (LCN) and the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL), were represented by Tim Johnston of Brick Court Chambers (the LSB), PJ Kirby KC<\/a> and James Hall<\/a> of Gatehouse Chambers (the LCN) and Benjamin Williams KC<\/a>, Matthew Waszak<\/a> and Theo Barclay<\/a> of 4 New Square (APIL).<\/p>\n","innerContent":["\n The Interveners, the Legal Services Board (LSB), Law Centres Network (LCN) and the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL), were represented by Tim Johnston of Brick Court Chambers (the LSB), PJ Kirby KC<\/a> and James Hall<\/a> of Gatehouse Chambers (the LCN) and Benjamin Williams KC<\/a>, Matthew Waszak<\/a> and Theo Barclay<\/a> of 4 New Square (APIL).<\/p>\n"]}],"new_scheduled_revision":null,"save_as_revision":null,"acf":{"custom_url":{"base_url":"guides","category":""},"sponsored_page":false,"href_lang":false,"useful_links":false,"social_sharing_post_options":{"alignment":"left","sticky":false},"title":"Written by Alexander Skelton, Principal Research Specialist for UK Bar","sponsors_list":{"sponsors":[{"name":"Alexander Skelton","website":"","logo":"https:\/\/assets.chambers.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/01112512\/alexander-skelton.png","display_order":"0"}],"showhide_borders":false},"template":{"name":"text-rich-media","sticky_sidebar":false},"hero_title":"","hero_description":"","hero_content_color":"light","hero_enable_responsive_images":false,"hero_image":false,"hero_retina_image":false},"yoast_head":"\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n