Discussion: Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP

Coupon-mad

Yep I was going to say April maybe.

kryten3000

Mazur judgment handed down just now - Appeal Upheld.

https://dmscdn.vuelio.co.uk/publicitem/2b703617-cd67-44e4-921d-305fa0565d5d

From the Law Gazette:

The key section is paragraph 187, where Birss says: ‘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.' 

h2g2

Jackson Yamba on LinkedIn:

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/jacksonyamba_i-predict-that-the-mazur-will-be-reaching-activity-7444616162128261120-Zahk

"I predict that the Mazur will be reaching the Supreme Court as today's ruling will upset many organisation."

kryten3000

Jackson posted before the judgment was announced.

More detail has been posted on the Law Gazette page:

"Birss says the delegation of tasks by the authorised individual to the unauthorised person requires ‘proper direction, management supervision and control, the details of which are a matter for the regulators’.

 Firms must put in place appropriate arrangements, and the degree of appropriate control and supervision will always depend on the circumstances."

https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/breaking-mazur-judgment-cilex-wins-appeal/5126371.article

ChirpyChicken

its the right result

A_Geordie

Some more relevant excerpts from the judgment.

Para 25.

… 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 delegation of tasks by the authorised individual to the unauthorised person requires proper management supervision and control, the details of which are a matter for the regulators. In some circumstances the degree of appropriate control and supervision will be high, with approval required before things are done. In other, for example routine, circumstances, a lower level of control and supervision will be required.

Para. 27

The result of this case means that the role of an unauthorised person in the context of the conduct of litigation is not limited merely to assisting or supporting an authorised individual.

Para. 187(iii)

The words “conduct of litigation” refer to the tasks to be undertaken, whilst the words “carry on” refer to direction and control of, and responsibility for, those tasks.

Para. 193

The Law Society provided the court with a list of litigation work which it contended was unlikely to fall within the statutory definition of “conduct of litigation”. I have identified 7 items from this list, which were neither challenged nor debated. They can, I think, be regarded as common ground (rather than the product of adversarial argument). The following are, therefore, unlikely to fall within the statutory definition of “conduct of litigation”:

i) Pre-litigation work. See Heron Bros Ltd v Central Bedfordshire Council [2015] EWHC 1009 (TCC).

ii) Giving legal advice in connection with court proceedings: See Agassi at [56] and JK v MK (E-Negotiation Ltd and another intervening) [2020] EWFC 2, [2020] 1 WLR 5091 at [27].

iii) Conducting correspondence with the opposing party on behalf of clients: See Agassi at [56].

iv) Gathering evidence. See Factortame at [25] to [29].

v) Instructing and liaising with experts and counsel. See Factortame at [28].

vi) Signing a statement of truth in respect of a statement of case. See O’Connor v Bar Standards Board (unreported, 17 August 2012) at [27].

vii) Signing any other document that the CPR permits to be signed by a legal representative, as defined by CPR Part 2.3.

Coupon-mad

Mazur isn't being appealed further but the county court cases against the likes of Elms Legal offering third party agency services aren't necessarily dead:

https://www.legalfutures.co.uk/latest-news/the-drama-is-over-no-mazur-appeal

I hope Ms Mazur didn't end up shouldering the over-zealous costs that HHJ Simpkiss wrongly awarded. Can't tell.

ChirpyChicken

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81977311#Comment_81977311

No the COA made it clear she would bare no costs in this case as a condition for allowing the appeal to proceed.

Coupon-mad

I'm glad.

I still fume about the cluelessness of HHJ Simpkiss and how he got the Wilshaw appeal wrong on every point and then awarded costs despite her actions not being unreasonable.