“LITIGANTS IN PERSON SHOULD BE WARY OF UNQUALIFIED INDIVIDUALS WHO ENCOURAGE THEM TO DEFEND OR PURSUE CASES BY REFERENCE TO SPURIOUS LEGAL ARGUMENTS, WHICH HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SUBSTANCE OF THE CASE”
It is rare for this blog to look at judgments from other jurisdictions. However some words from the High Court of Ireland caught my eye. It offers advice, in particular, to litigants in person. (This is not a warning in…
THE CLAIMANT RELIED ON A FALSE AUTHORITY: THE CONTEXT OF THIS CASE MADE IT DIFFICULT FOR THE LITIGANT TO CHECK THE CITATION
We are looking again at the phenomenon of “false” authorities. However in this case the courts were more forgiving of the litigant who had relied on a non-existent case. The judgment does, however, show the need for care in legal…
MAZUR MATTERS 33: MAZUR IN PARLIAMENT (2): THE LETTER FROM THE MINISTER TO THE JUSTICE COMMITTEE
We continue with our rare trip inside the Houses of Parliament by looking at the response that the Minister for Courts and Legal Services to the letter from the Chair of the Justice Committee. (We are seeing how Mazur…
MAZUR MATTERS 32: MAZUR IN PARLIAMENT (1): THE LETTER FROM THE JUSTICE COMMITTEE TO THE MINISTER
It is rare for there to be Parliamentary consideration of the matters discussed in this blog. Quite often we are trying to divine what it is that Parliament actually meant when it drafted a statute. In the Mazur case Parliament…
MAZUR MATTERS 31: THE LEGAL SERVICES BOARD REVIEW OF “WHY MAZUR WAS A SURPRISE” – AND WHAT CHANGED AFTERWARDS?
The Legal Services Board has set out the scope of its review of “advice and guidance provided to the profession on the conduct of litigation by approved regulators and regulatory bodies”. Stripped down to its basics the question being asked…
MAZUR MATTERS 30: BREAKING NEWS: LEGAL SERVICES BOARD GRANTS CILEX’S APPLICATION FOR STAND ALONE LITIGATION RIGHTS
The Legal Services Board has today approved an application from CILEx Regulation to allow legal executives to obtain standalone litigation practice rights. Here we have the announcement and the Decision Notice. The finer detail will be considered when it becomes…
MAZUR MATTERS 29: MORE USEFUL LINKS: THE FOIL RESPONSE
Here we are looking at another useful link. FOIL (the Federation of Insurance Lawyers) has produced a document dealing with the potential consequences of Mazur for its members. (FOIL has always been such a clever name. This link shows that…
COST BITES 303: THE SOLICITOR CANNOT PASS ON RESPONSIBILITY FOR A DEFECTIVE BILL TO THE COSTS LAWYER: A 75% REDUCTION BECAUSE OF THE WAY IN WHICH THE BILL WAS DRAFTED
Here we are looking at a case involving a bill of costs that was wholly defective that the costs judge was invited to strike it out. The judge came very close, but reduced the bill by 75% instead. There…
MAZUR(ISH) MATTERS 28: IT WAS “SLIGHTLY SURPRISING” THAT A PARALEGAL “DID NOT KNOW MORE ABOUT THE REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT APPLICABLE TO NON-SOLICITORS”
Here we look at a judge’s comments outside the ambit of litigation. Nevertheless it shows that the issue of professional regulation and the use of “non-authorised” employees within solicitor’s firms may well become a more important issue in the future….
MAZUR MATTERS 26: SHOULD THE PROFESSION HAVE SEEN THIS COMING? THERE WERE CLUES…: TODAY IS THE 18th ANNIVERSARY OF THE LEGAL SERVICES ACT 2007 COMING INTO FORCE: SHOULD WE HAVE BEEN SURPRISED?
The reason why we litigators are infinitely wise is that we always deal with things in retrospect. We have the perfect vision of hindsight. Litigation is full of “why did you do that?”, “If you say that now why didn’t…
EXPERT WATCH 23: NOW THINGS GET EVEN MORE REMARKABLE: EXPERT WRITES TO THE COURT TO SAY “MY EVIDENCE WAS WRONG”: REGULATORY BODY THINKS THE REPORT WAS VERY WRONG…
The previous post recorded how it is still possible to be surprised by what goes on in litigation. We see that again here, but to a greater extent. After a trial and a judgment was given an expert wrote to…
EXPERT WATCH 22: JUST WHEN YOU THINK YOU MAY HAVE SEEN IT ALL: THE CLIENT (BASICALLY) DRAFTS THE JOINT STATEMENT: THE JUDGE THINKS THEY MAY HAVE PLAYED A LARGE PART IN THE DRAFTING OF THE REPORT ITSELF…
No matter how long, and how much, you write about civil procedure cases can still come along which surprise – if not astonish. We have such a case here. The judge found that, essentially, it was the client who played…
LIGHT IN ALL THE HEAT: ENSURING THAT AN AUTHORISED PERSON HAS “CONDUCT OF LITIGATION”: A PRACTICAL GUIDE: WEBINAR 31st OCTOBER 2025
There are many heated responses to the Mazur decision. There are articles suggesting that the judge got the law wrong. (Apparently the judge should not have listened to the submissions of both the Law Society and SRA which supported his…
MAZUR MATTERS 25: WHAT DIFFERENCE WILL MAZUR MAKE TO THE ASSESSMENT OF COSTS?(2) : HOW ABOUT – “A LITTLE AND POSSIBLY QUITE A LOT”?
The commentary on the implications of the Mazur case continues apace. In particular there has been much discussion about whether it affects liability to pay costs. LinkedIn contains reports that “Mazur” issues are already being raised in Points of Dispute. …
COST BITES 300: THE SERIES TO DATE: IT STARTED WITH A “BOUTIQUE FIRM”, YESTERDAY IT WAS ABOUT CONDUCT, AND IS UNLIKELY TO END SOON…
This series started in July 2022. I wanted to make sure that we got to look at the “smaller” issues in relation to costs as well as major decisions. Those “incidental” issues, summary assessments, judicial commentary and the like can…
COST BITES 299: PUTTING FORWARD A OVER-LARGE BILL IN NEGOTATIONS ON COSTS: SHOULD THIS LEAD TO THE BILL BEING REDUCED BY 75%?
It is not unusual for a receiving party to make an offer on costs before detailed assessment proceedings begin, indeed this is a normal practice. Here the court considered the question of whether serving a draft bill in negotiations that…
MAZUR MATTERS 24: WHAT IS MEANT BY THE “CONDUCT OF LITIGATION” (5): THE MEANING OF “COURT” AND WHAT ACTIVITIES ARE NOT COVERED BY ACT
Here we continue with the examination of what is meant by the “conduct litigation” by looking at the Statute and Law Society Guidance as to the meaning of “court”. This extends to some, but not all, tribunals. (Some courts are…
MAZUR MATTERS 23: THIS ISSUE GOES BACK TO 1729: A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE LEGISLATION OF THE RIGHT TO “CONDUCT LITIGATION”: THIS WILL HELP CONTEMPORARY DEBATE
Some of the commentary on the Mazur issues suggests that the problem occurs because of a “rogue” definition contained in a schedule to the Legal Services Act 2007. In fact there have been statutory provisions on this issue since (at least) 1729. …
MAZUR MATTERS 22: USEFUL LINKS: GUIDANCE FROM THE SRA (IN 2022) – WHICH SAID EXACTLY WHAT MAZUR SAID: A SITUATION HIDING IN PLAIN SIGHT…
Here we look at guidance given by the SRA in November 2022. The one thing that the SRA can point to is the fact that this guidance said, in clear terms, precisely what was said in Mazur about who can…
MAZUR MATTERS 21: WHEN AN INSURER GIVES OUT DETAILED ADVICE THEN WE SHOULD ALL PAY CLOSE ATTENTION …
There is a growing amount of guidance on practical means for lawyers to deal with the Mazur decision. Links have been provided in earlier posts. However this guidance, in particular, is of some considerable significance. A major insurer has provided…
MAZUR MATTERS 20: TWO MORE USEFUL LINKS: WHAT IS NOT THE CONDUCT OF LITIGATION? PLUS A SNIPPET OF THE LAW SOCIETY GUIDANCE
I am continuing with the Mazur series by looking at two more useful links from reputable sources. One, from the Bar Standards Board, on what is not the conduct of litigation the other the Law Society Practice Note on these…
THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 32: CLOSING SUBMISSIONS ARE NO PLACE TO TAKE A POINT THAT HAS NEVER BEEN PLEADED AT ALL
Here we are looking at a case where there were manifold issues (“100s of allegations) and where evidence was given over several weeks. However the claimant attempted to raise a new, unpleaded, issue during closing submissions. As we shall see…
SHOULD A COURT STRIKE AN ACTION OUT AFTER A TRIAL WHEN THE CLAIMANTS’ CONDUCT HAS BEEN REALLY BAD? THE HIGH COURT CONSIDERS THE QUESTION…
Here we are considering an unusual issue about an unusual case. At the end of the evidence the defendants made a submission that the action should be struck out because the claimants conduct had made a fair trial impossible. The…
PART 36 CASE OF THE DAY (3): SHOULD FAILURE TO MEDIATE PROMPTLY MAKE A DIFFERENCE TO THE COSTS ORDER?
We are continuing with our examination of the costs implications of a costs order. Here we look at the defendant’s arguments that the claimant’s failure to respond promptly to an offer to mediate should lead to costs penalties. (The Sounds…
MAZUR MATTERS 14: ENSURING THAT AN AUTHORISED PERSON HAS “CONDUCT OF LITIGATION”: A PRACTICAL GUIDE: WEBINAR ON 31st OCTOBER 2025
As all readers of this blog will now by now The decision in Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) means that solicitors must ensure that an “authorised person” has conduct of litigation. A failure to…
SOME MORE ABOUT SURVEILLANCE EVIDENCE: THOSE CARRYING OUT THE FILMING MUST NOT ATTEMPT TO USURP THE ROLE OF THE TRIAL JUDGE
We are looking again at the decision yesterday in relation to the conduct of surveillance evidence. Just to highlight two issues: (1) a camera operator should not try to usurp the functions of the judge. The practice of providing a…
MAZUR MATTERS 13: WHAT IS MEAN BY “THE CONDUCT OF LITIGATION” 4: THE COURT SHOULD LOOK AT THE ENTIRETY OF ACTIVITIES UNDERTAKEN “IN THE ROUND”
The decision Mazur continues to attract considerable comment, for good reason. Here we consider the question of how the courts approach the issue. (13 may be lucky for some. Just remember the court considers the position “in the round”). …
MAZUR MATTERS 12: WHAT IS MEANT BY “THE CONDUCT OF LITIGATION” 3: JUDGMENT ON WHAT IS NOT THE CONDUCT OF LITIGATION
We are continuing with the detailed look at the consequences of the Mazur case. Here we look at that part of a judgment where the court made clear findings as to what did not constitute the conduct of litigation. (Staying outside…
MAZUR MATTERS 11: WHAT IS MEANT BY “THE CONDUCT OF LITIGATION” 2 (A) : WHEN SOMEBODY BREACHED THE ACT AND WAS IN CONTEMPT OF COURT BY ARRANGING FOR THE SERVICE OF PLEADINGS
Comment on the implications of the Mazur decision goes on unabated. Some of this is informed commentary, some it is definitely not. On this site we are going to continue the examination of the primary sources of assistance to litigators…
MAZUR RECORDING – NOW AVAILABLE
The webinar on Mazur I did last Friday is now available from Steve Cornforth who kindly arranged it. Details are below. (You can watch the recording on any screen you like – well nearly…) HOW TO GET IN TOUCH WITH…
MAZUR MATTERS 10: THE STATUTORY DEFENCE TO THE CRIMINAL OFFENCE: WHY YOU (PROBABLY) WON’T GO TO JAIL: BUT THE POSITION GOING FORWARD MAY BE DIFFERENT…
A person unlawfully “conducting” litigation can be imprisoned for up to two years, be fined and is also in contempt of court. This makes uncomfortable reading for many. However there is a statutory defence. There is useful case law…
MAZUR MATTERS 9: WHAT IS MEANT BY THE “CONDUCT OF LITIGATION”? (2): AN EARLY COURT OF APPEAL DECISION WHICH HELPS
We are continuing with a detailed examination of the cases and principles relating to what is meant by the “conduct of litigation”. Here (with some major caveats in mind) we look at the Court of Appeal decision that has been…
MAZUR MATTERS 8: WHAT IS MEANT BY THE “CONDUCT OF LITIGATION” (1): HOW HELPFUL ARE THE REGULATORS?
This is the start of a new sub-series concentrating on one issue. We will be looking at what has become one of the key matters of concern for many litigators – what is meant by the “conduct of litigation”. There…
MAZUR MATTERS 7: LINKS TO SOME USEFUL RESOURCES: SOME INTERESTING READING FOR THE WEEKEND…
I have just finished presenting a webinar on the Mazur decision. I have a distinct feeling that this will not be the last. It was the first time I can remember where the time spent on questions afterwards exceeded the…
MAZUR MATTERS 6: FURTHER GUIDANCE FROM CILEX: “FIRMS WILL NEED TO SATISFY THEMSELVES THAT THEY ARE COMPLIANT WITH THE LAW”
CILEX have provided further guidance in a document produced yesterday “CILEx Regulation – Interim Guidance The conduct of litigation and supervision”. (It may not be too late to register for the webinar on this topic today at 12.00 – details…
MAZUR MATTERS 5: THE SRA STATEMENT: “WE KNEW THE LAW ALL ALONG” (WITH NO EXPLANATION AS TO HOW THEY GOT IT WRONG)
Along with the reminder that the webinar on Mazur is on Friday 3rd October (details available here) it is notable that SRA issued a statement on Mazur yesterday. The full text of which is below. There is no hint of…
MAZUR MATTERS 3: CILEX MEMBERS – THE REAL VICTIMS OF ALL THIS: WHAT CILEX MEMBERS CAN DO ABOUT THIS
If any members of the profession are entitled to be disgruntled (to put it mildly) about the decision in Mazur it is CILEX members who conduct litigation. They have hard earned qualifications and extensive experience. However, unless they come within…
COST BITES 294: “A DETAILED ASSESSMENT IS NOT THE FORUM TO RESCUE OR TO ATTEMPT TO CHANGE THE EFFECT OF A POORLY WORDED ORDER”: THE COURT WOULD NOT CONSIDER ASSERTIONS OF POTENTIAL FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTYOF THE PRIMARY ACTION ON ASSESSMENT
Here we are looking at an attempt by a paying party defendant to raise issues of conduct, including potential fundamental dishonesty, at the assessment of costs stage. The defendant argued (or attempted to argue) that the costs judge should take…
MAZUR MATTERS 2: THE ROLE OF THE SOLICITORS REGULATORY AUTHORITY : THE REGULATOR THAT GOT THE LAW WRONG AND IS NOW “PONDERING” WHAT TO DO…
The webinar on Friday the 3rd October will deal with many of the major issues that arise from the the decision in Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB). One interesting aspect of the case is…
PROVING THINGS 269: PROVING THAT A SOLICITOR WAS DISHONEST: IS TURNING A “BLIND EYE” ENOUGH?
NB THIS DECISION THAT THE SOLICITOR WAS DISHONEST WAS OVERTURNED BY THE COURT OF APPEAL SEE Grosvenor Property Developers Ltd v Portner Law Ltd [2026] EWCA Civ 1238 (02 October 2026) This is an important and interesting case about findings…
MAZUR MATTERS 1: THE PENALTIES FOR NON-QUALIFIED STAFF CONDUCTING LITIGATION (AKA “HOW MUCH TIME COULD I SERVE”)
The webinar on Friday the 3rd October will deal with many of the major issues that arise from the the decision in Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB). However it is clear that it…
THE PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS OF MAZUR CONSIDERED: HOW NOT TO BREAK THE CRIMINAL LAW BY USING NON-QUALIFIED STAFF… WEBINAR 3rd OCTOBER 2025
I have written three posts on the decision in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys already. This judgment has profound practical implications for the profession in the way it manages cases and supervises staff. This webinar on the 3rd October 2025…
MORE ABOUT WHO CAN PROPERLY “CONDUCT LITIGATION”: THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LAW SOCIETY AND SOLICITORS REGULATION AUTHORITY: “TASKS MAY BE DELEGATED BUT CONDUCT OF THE LITIGATION MAY NOT”
As I said yesterday the matters discussed in the recent judgment about whether a fee earner can conduct litigation may have a widespread impact. It is important that litigators are aware of the views of the Law Society and the…
COST BITES 289: INVALID DAMAGES BASED AGREEMENTS MEANT THAT THE APPELLANTS COULD NOT RECOVER £1.3 MILLION IN COSTS (A BAD DAY OUT FOR THE LAWYERS INVOLVED…)
Today we are looking at a case where the appellants claim to £1.3 million in costs was lost because the Damages-Based Agreements were found to be unlawful and unenforceable. It provides a salutary lesson to all those who are involved…
BARRISTER REFERRED TO THE BSB BECAUSE OF THE USE OF AI “HALLUCINATED” CASES: IGNORANCE THAT THIS WAS HAPPENING IS NO DEFENCE
We have another example of a lawyer getting into trouble (potentially very serious trouble) through the use of Artificial Intelligence and its ability to “hallucinate” cases. It was accepted that the error was not deliberate. However the Upper Tribunal pointed…
IT WOULD BE AN “AFFRONT TO JUSTICE” NOT TO SET ASIDE THIS “FINAL” JUDGMENT: THERE IS A LOT HERE THAT EVERYONE INVOLVED IN THE LITIGATION PROCESS SHOULD PROBABLY READ
We are looking at a number of cases that, on the face of it, are highly unusual. One judge has already indicated that there is a strong prima facie cases that some related cases “are all fraudulent”. There are…
COST BITES 284: DEFECTIVE WITNESS STATEMENTS PLAY A PART IN A DECISION TO AWARD INDEMNITY COSTS: “DEPRIVING THE DEFENDANT OF THE USUAL RIGHT NOT TO PAY DISPROPORTIONATE COSTS, IS AN ENTIRELY PROPORTIONATE RESPONSE TO THE DEFENDANT’S CONDUCT OF THIS ACTION”
Here we look at a judgment where indemnity costs were awarded against an unsuccessful defendant. As we shall see there were a number of factors in that decision. However it is notable that, in both judgments, the judge commented on…
GIVING BAD NEWS TO CLIENTS: SOME USEFUL HINTS AND SOME USEFUL LINKS
This post follows a report earlier in the week of a solicitor being struck off because she lied to her client about the fact that a medical report had arrived. The medical report contained bad news in relation to the…
COST BITES 281: THE CLAIMANTS SUCCEEDED AT TRIAL – ARE THEY ENTITLED TO INDEMNITY COSTS OR SHOULD COSTS BE REDUCED BY 20%?
We are looking at the judge’s consideration of costs issues after a lengthy trial. The claimants had succeeded and the judge considered whether the matter had been conducted in such a way as to justify an order for indemnity costs…
MY WITNESSES HAVE MADE STATEMENTS BUT WILL NOT ATTEND THE TRIAL: WHAT IS THE JUDGE GOING TO INFER? SECTION 2(4) OF THE CIVIL EVIDENCE ACT 1995 CONSIDERED
Here we are looking at a case where the claimant served witness statements that he said he was going to rely on. It only became apparent part way through the trial that the claimant was not, in fact, going to…
You must be logged in to post a comment.