England and Wales Case Law

Chartered Institute of Legal Executive (CILEX) & Ors v Mazur & Ors

Chartered Institute of Legal Executive (CILEX) & Ors v Mazur & Ors [2026] EWCA Civ 369 (31 March 2026)

The Court of Appeal held that authorised legal professionals may delegate tasks within litigation to unauthorised staff, provided the authorised person retains responsibility.

• Reserved legal activities
• Conduct of litigation
• Delegation and supervision
• Legal services act 2007
• Authorisation of legal professionals
• Role of unauthorised persons

Read case analysis

Julia Mazur & Ors v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP & Ors

The Court of Appeal held that unauthorised staff may perform litigation tasks for an authorised individual, if the authorised person retains responsibility and proper supervision is in place.

• Conduct of litigation
• Delegation to unauthorised persons
• Reserved legal activities
• Supervision in legal practice
• Legal services act 2007
• Regulatory objectives

Read case analysis

Pringle v Nervo

Pringle v Nervo [2026] EWCA Civ 266 (13 March 2026)

Court of Appeal allowed a father’s appeal against a costs order in private children proceedings, holding the judge had not properly applied the no-costs principle.

• Costs orders in children proceedings
• Conduct of litigation
• Transparency orders
• Declaration of parentage
• Parental responsibility
• Child arrangements

Read case analysis

Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP

Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) (16 September 2025)

The High Court held that a non-authorised employee could not conduct litigation under supervision under the Legal Services Act 2007, and quashed a costs award.

• Reserved legal activities
• Costs orders
• Legal services act 2007
• Conduct of litigation
• Authorisation of legal professionals
• Legal-services-act-2007

Read case analysis

Julia Mazur & Ors v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP

The High Court held that a non-authorised employee cannot conduct litigation under supervision and set aside a costs order that exceeded the Intermediate Track cap.

• Reserved legal activities
• Conduct of litigation
• Legal services act 2007
• Costs assessment
• Regulatory authority
• Legal-services-act-2007

Read case analysis

Asset House Piccadilly Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC

The Tribunal refused applications to bar HMRC from tax appeals, holding HMRC officers were parties to the proceedings, no relevant restriction applied, and there was no abuse of process.

• Reserved legal activities
• Legal services act 2007
• Conduct of litigation
• Representation before tribunals
• Abuse of process
• Legal-services-act-2007

Read case analysis

Craig Baxter v Sarah Doble & Anor

The High Court held that conduct by a legal services business amounted to conducting litigation, but the respondent escaped contempt under the section 14(2) defence.

• Contempt of court
• Reserved legal activities
• Legal services act 2007
• Conduct of litigation
• Statutory defence
• Contempt-of-court

Read case analysis

Baxter v Doble & Anor

Baxter v Doble & Anor [2023] EWHC 486 (KB) (08 March 2023)

Contempt application over alleged unauthorised conduct of litigation. The court held the Respondents did conduct litigation, but the section 14(2) defence succeeded.

• Contempt of court
• Reserved legal activities
• Conduct of litigation
• Legal services act 2007
• Unqualified persons acting as solicitors
• Contempt-of-court

Read case analysis

Mathieu v Hinds & Anor (No. 2: Costs)

Mathieu v Hinds & Anor (No. 2: Costs) [2022] EWHC 1624 (QB) (23 June 2022)

Costs decision in a personal injury case: the claimant remained the successful party, but his costs were reduced for the failed dementia issue and later settlement conduct.

• Costs
• Provisional damages
• Settlement offers
• Quantum of damages
• Conduct of litigation
• Civil-procedure

Read case analysis

Comberg v VivoPower International Services Ltd & Anor

Comberg v VivoPower International Services Ltd & Anor [2020] EWHC 2787 (QB) (20 October 2020)

The High Court held that mitigation should generally be credited on a gross basis, except for £10,000 actually remitted and taxed. Costs were awarded to the claimant, subject to targeted deductions.

• Wrongful dismissal
• Mitigation of loss
• Taxation of damages
• Costs orders
• Issue-based costs
• Conduct of litigation

Read case analysis