We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.

This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.

IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

Discussion: Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP

1679111214

Comments

  • ParkingMad
    ParkingMad Posts: 438 Forumite
    Sixth Anniversary 100 Posts Name Dropper
    edited 4 October at 5:37PM
    Statement by Cilex about Mazur v Speechlys:

    https://www.cilex.org.uk/media/media_releases/litigation-practice-rights-statement/

    CILEX Statement: Litigation practice rights

    24 September 2025

    We know members have questions about the recent High Court ruling in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys , so we want to clarify what it means for you.

    The Court ruled that anyone who is not authorised to conduct litigation cannot do so under supervision. You can support and assist an authorised colleague, but you can’t carry out litigation yourself unless you hold practice rights.

    This ruling does not change the position for CILEX members working in litigation, it simply reinforces the existing guidance; a Chartered Legal Executive who does not hold separate litigation practice rights is not authorised to conduct litigation. While some reserved areas of practice (conveyancing and probate) allow more scope for supervised work, litigation is different and has stricter rules.

    To gain the right to conduct litigation, there are three routes available – by assessment, by portfolio, or by training and assessment. You can find full details in the Practice Rights Hub in your myCILEX account.

    We understand that the authorisation system can feel complicated at times, and we’ll keep working with the Regulators and other stakeholders to push for clearer and simpler guidance for the profession.

    We will shortly be organising a member webinar focused on practice rights, but if you have any questions in the meantime, please  reach out to the CILEX team.

  • Le_Kirk
    Le_Kirk Posts: 25,144 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Photogenic Name Dropper

    That said, commencing and progressing proceedings using an unauthorised signatory is still improper. Once raised, the claimant must cure it; failure or delay would risk sanctions up to and including strike-out. Even if cured, the initial non-compliance is capable of amounting to unreasonable conduct, exposing the claimant to a costs order (small claims: CPR 27.14(2)(g); generally: CPR 44.11). Recent authority confirms that unauthorised employees cannot conduct litigation; the practical consequence is remedial steps and potential costs, not automatic nullity of the entire claim.

    Couple of questions if I may: -
    1. Once raised - what does this mean in practice, if a defendant writes to the claimant's solicitor company upon receipt of a POC apparently signed by a non-qualified person, is this raised?
    2) 
    claimant must cure it - how long does the claimant have to cure it?
  • Car1980
    Car1980 Posts: 2,131 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    "I'll be honest, I have never seen or heard of a witness statement being struck out on the basis that the witness is too remote to be a genuine witness to give evidence."

    (the quote function does not seem to be working for me)

    Sorry, not struck out as in a formal Order. Dismissed at the hearing I meant.

    Same resuilt though. 

  • jd576
    jd576 Posts: 108 Forumite
    100 Posts First Anniversary Name Dropper

    Car1980 said:

    (the quote function does not seem to be working for me)

    You have to highlight the text and press the quote function button twice and then it works
  • Jonas_264
    Jonas_264 Posts: 13 Forumite
    First Anniversary First Post
    Where does this leave unqualified self-employed people like those working for Legal Practice Clerks? 

    They turn up at Court, do not have rights of audience and seem to be allowed to represent. 
  • Coupon-mad
    Coupon-mad Posts: 155,731 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    I think there is an exemption for reps at hearings.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
    CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
    Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
  • ChirpyChicken
    ChirpyChicken Posts: 2,120 Forumite
    1,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    Jonas_264 said:
    Where does this leave unqualified self-employed people like those working for Legal Practice Clerks? 

    They turn up at Court, do not have rights of audience and seem to be allowed to represent. 
    They are not affected 
  • A_Geordie
    A_Geordie Posts: 359 Forumite
    Third Anniversary 100 Posts Name Dropper
    They are not affected 
    Can you elaborate?

    I'm out of touch somewhat on this point but I thought the only relevant exemption applies to proceedings described as being "in chambers". So that would be limited to certain proceedings or applications made by an order of the court to be heard in chambers. Given that the seniors courts have advocated that cases need to be heard in open court wherever possible, standard small claims disputes would not grant unregistered barristers a right of audience.
  • doubledotcom
    doubledotcom Posts: 202 Forumite
    100 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    Le_Kirk said:

    That said, commencing and progressing proceedings using an unauthorised signatory is still improper. Once raised, the claimant must cure it; failure or delay would risk sanctions up to and including strike-out. Even if cured, the initial non-compliance is capable of amounting to unreasonable conduct, exposing the claimant to a costs order (small claims: CPR 27.14(2)(g); generally: CPR 44.11). Recent authority confirms that unauthorised employees cannot conduct litigation; the practical consequence is remedial steps and potential costs, not automatic nullity of the entire claim.

    Couple of questions if I may: -
    1. Once raised - what does this mean in practice, if a defendant writes to the claimant's solicitor company upon receipt of a POC apparently signed by a non-qualified person, is this raised?
    2) claimant must cure it - how long does the claimant have to cure it?

    Once 'raised' means the issue has been formally brought to the claimant’s attention. Writing to the claimant’s solicitor to point out that the PoC or SoT were signed by an unauthorised person is sufficient to raise it between the parties. However, to make it a live procedural issue for the court, it should also be mentioned in the defence or by way of a specific application or request for case management directions.

    There is no fixed time limit for curing the defect. The claimant is expected to act promptly once notified. They can correct it by re-signing the document with a valid Statement of Truth under CPR 22 or by filing an amended pleading under CPR 17. If they fail to do so within a reasonable time, or before the next procedural step, it may be treated as continuing non-compliance, potentially justifying sanctions or costs orders.

Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 454.3K Spending & Discounts
  • 245.2K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 600.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 177.5K Life & Family
  • 259K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.7K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.