Case Digest No. 19 · Regulatory and commercial litigation
Who may conduct litigation under the Legal Services Act 2007
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB)
The High Court held that an unauthorised person cannot conduct litigation merely because they are employed and supervised by an authorised person; they must be authorised or fall within an exemption.
High Court (King’s Bench Division)
[2025] EWHC 2341 (KB)
October 2025
Decision at a glance
The question, answer and consequence.
- Legal question
- The central issue was who may conduct litigation under the Legal Services Act 2007.
- Court's answer
- The High Court held that an unauthorised person cannot conduct litigation merely because they are employed and supervised by an authorised person; they must be authorised or fall within an exemption.
- Practical consequence
- The judgment draws an important regulatory boundary around the reserved activity of conducting litigation. Firms and clients must structure delegation and supervision so that procedural work is performed only by persons legally entitled to do it.
Factual background
The Appellants failed to pay the fee of £54,263.50 that the Respondent charged for legal work they carried out. The Respondent instructed another law firm, Goldsmith Bowers Solicitors (“GBS”), to recover this debt. A Claim Form was issued and signed by GBS, and Particulars of Claim were signed by Mr Peter Middleton, GBS’s “Head of Commercial Litigation”. The Appellants made an application for directions, including an order directing that the Respondent replace Mr Middleton with a qualified solicitor, given that he did not hold a current practising certificate. DDJ Campbell ordered a stay of proceedings and an application was made by the Respondent to lift the stay. Before the initial hearing, Mr Middleton’s involvement with the proceedings ended and he was replaced by Ms Lisa Adkin, a qualified solicitor with a practising certificate. Mr Robert Ashall, a director at GBS, made a self-report to the SRA in connection with Mr Middleton’s employment and the SRA decided not to investigate. In a witness statement, Mr Ashall accepted that Mr Middleton was “not entitled to conduct any reserved activity as defined in the [LSA]” but explained that the work done by Mr Middleton in relation to the proceedings had been done under his supervision. ISSUE Whether, pursuant to the Legal Services Act (“LSA”) 2007, a non-authorised person is entitled to conduct litigation under the supervision of a person who is so authorised.
Issue
The central issue was who may conduct litigation under the Legal Services Act 2007.
Procedural history and reasoning
His Honour Judge Simpkiss HHJ Simpkiss decided to lift the stay and decided that the Respondent should file an amended Claim Form and Particulars of Claim verified with a statement of truth signed in the name of an individual at GBS who was duly authorised to do so. Further, he decided that the claim would be allocated to the Intermediate Track, complexity band 4 and ordered the Appellants to pay the Claimant’s costs of the application to lift the stay, summarily assessed in the sum of £10,653. HHJ Simpkiss found that there were two reasons which made it unnecessary to make a decision: (1) there was no question of any breach of the LSA in the conduct of the litigation following Mr Middleton’s replacement even if there was before; and (2) the SRA confirmed that Mr Middleton had authority to conduct litigation under the supervision of Mr Ashall.
Following a complaint, the SRA handed down a decision not to investigate the conduct of GBL in relation to Mr Middleton, with the relevant section reading as follows: “Goldsmith Bowers Ltd is authorised under the Legal Services Act 2007 arrangements as it is a firm authorised and regulated by the SR[A] under the powers delegated to it under the Act. Its employees are permitted to undertake “reserved activities” due to section 21(3). Middleton has not conducted a reserved legal activity without entitlement to do so, so are satisfied no further action is required on this occasion.” THE APPEAL Mr Justice Sheldon Sheldon J broke down the Grounds of Appeal into two core points: (i) did His Honour Judge Simpkiss err in deciding that Mr Middleton was authorised to conduct litigation under the supervision of Mr Ashall; and (ii) did His Honour Judge Simpkiss err in making an award of costs, or making an award in the amount of £10,653, against the Appellants?
Non-admitted persons may assist or support authorised persons in the conduct of litigation provided that final responsibility for the conduct of litigation rests with an authorised person. In such a case, the non-admitted person does not “conduct litigation”. Under the LSA there are two ways in which a person may be entitled to perform reserved legal activities: they may be “authorised” (s18 LSA) or “exempt” (s19 LSA). WAS MR MIDDLETON ENTITLED TO CONDUCT LITIGATION UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF MR ASHALL? Sheldon J said that the short answer to this question was “NO” and, therefore, HHJ Simpkiss’s conclusion to the contrary was an ERROR OF LAW. In paragraph 49 of his judgment, Sheldon J opined that the following was the proper construction of the LSA: “Mere employment by a person who is authorised to conduct litigation under is not sufficient for the employee to conduct litigation themselves, even under supervision.
Decision and key points
The High Court held that an unauthorised person cannot conduct litigation merely because they are employed and supervised by an authorised person; they must be authorised or fall within an exemption.
- Section 21(3) of the Legal Services Act 2007 does not permit an unauthorised person to conduct litigation merely because they are supervised by an authorised person.
- A person conducting litigation must be authorised or fall within a statutory exemption.
Why this decision matters
The judgment draws an important regulatory boundary around the reserved activity of conducting litigation. Firms and clients must structure delegation and supervision so that procedural work is performed only by persons legally entitled to do it.
Particularly relevant to: Law firms, barristers, in-house legal teams, litigation funders and regulated service providers.