In a significant ruling, the High Court (Sheldon J) has provided critical guidance on two hot-button issues for practitioners:


🔹 Who Can Legally “Conduct Litigation”?
The case of Mazur & Stuart v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP clarifies that unqualified employees of authorised law firms cannot conduct litigation, even under supervision. Despite initial support from the SRA, the Court held this to be a misinterpretation of the Legal Services Act 2007. Only an “authorised person” or “exempt person” may conduct reserved legal activities.

👨‍⚖️ Assisting ≠ Conducting:
Support roles for non-admitted individuals are permitted ✔️
But taking conduct of litigation? That’s strictly reserved ❌

🔹 Fixed Costs in the Intermediate Track
The judgment also tackled summary assessment of costs. Despite the claim being provisionally allocated to the Intermediate Track, the first instance judge awarded over £10,000 in interim application costs — 30x the fixed cap! 😳

🚫 The High Court disagreed. CPR 45.8 fixes such costs at £333 + court fee, unless exceptional circumstances exist. Complex legal arguments alone do not qualify.

🎯 Key Lessons for Practitioners:
✅ Know your boundaries under the LSA.
✅ Stick to fixed costs unless you have truly exceptional justification.
✅ Don’t rely blindly on SRA correspondence — test it against statutory authority.

This ruling is a wake-up call for litigators, costs lawyers, and compliance officers alike.

In a significant ruling, the High Court (Sheldon J) has provided critical guidance on two hot-button issues for practitioners:


🔹 Who Can Legally “Conduct Litigation”?
The case of Mazur & Stuart v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP clarifies that unqualified employees of authorised law firms cannot conduct litigation, even under supervision. Despite initial support from the SRA, the Court held this to be a misinterpretation of the Legal Services Act 2007. Only an “authorised person” or “exempt person” may conduct reserved legal activities.

👨‍⚖️ Assisting ≠ Conducting:
Support roles for non-admitted individuals are permitted ✔️
But taking conduct of litigation? That’s strictly reserved ❌

🔹 Fixed Costs in the Intermediate Track
The judgment also tackled summary assessment of costs. Despite the claim being provisionally allocated to the Intermediate Track, the first instance judge awarded over £10,000 in interim application costs — 30x the fixed cap! 😳

🚫 The High Court disagreed. CPR 45.8 fixes such costs at £333 + court fee, unless exceptional circumstances exist. Complex legal arguments alone do not qualify.

🎯 Key Lessons for Practitioners:
✅ Know your boundaries under the LSA.
✅ Stick to fixed costs unless you have truly exceptional justification.
✅ Don’t rely blindly on SRA correspondence — test it against statutory authority.

This ruling is a wake-up call for litigators, costs lawyers, and compliance officers alike.