The Court of Appeal’s 31 March 2026 judgment in Mazur [2026] EWCA Civ 369 Rev 1 provided much-needed clarity on supervision and regulatory oversight.
The Mazur judgment has been one of the most widely debated topics across the legal sector in recent months. Centred on the boundaries of delegation and supervision, the ruling raised critical questions for firm-wide risk management and operational compliance.
Key Finding: Authority and Legal Responsibility
One of the core takeaways of the judgment is confirmed at Paragraph 187:
“An unauthorised person may lawfully perform any tasks, which are within the scope of the conduct of litigation, for and on behalf of an authorised individual such as a solicitor or appropriately authorised CILEX member, provided the authorised individual retains responsibility for the tasks delegated to the unauthorised person (both formal responsibility and the responsibilities identified at section 1(3) of the 2007 Act). In that situation, the authorised individual is the person carrying on the conduct of litigation.”
This clarifies that accountability for the conduct of litigation rests firmly with the supervising authorised person, even when tasks have been carried out by non-qualified personnel.
The Core Debate: Supervision vs. Criminal Liability
The original Mazur judgment caused considerable unease across the profession. The primary concern was whether deficiencies in supervision or delegation could inadvertently cross the threshold from regulatory non-compliance into criminal liability.
For firms balancing daily case management with robust oversight, this ambiguity created significant uncertainty regarding where regulatory duty ends and potential criminal exposure begins.
The Court of Appeal’s Clarification: Paragraph 31A
Recognising the far-reaching implications for solicitors, the Law Society proactively sought clarification from the Court of Appeal.
In a crucial piece of judicial housekeeping, the Court of Appeal utilised the Slip Rule to insert Paragraph 31A into the judgment.
This clears up the ambiguity surrounding the Mazur judgment, specifically regarding the boundary between regulatory oversight and criminal liability.
One must commend the Law Society for their proactive approach which ultimately secured this vital clarification from the Court of Appeal.
As the original judgment caused significant debate regarding whether inadequate supervision could inadvertently trigger criminal liability. So, through this amendment, the Court has provided the necessary clarity, confirming that the standard of supervision remains a regulatory matter.
Paragraph 31A (paragraph explained where amendments had been made in the judgement) to clarify supervision is a regulatory matter.
Practical Takeaways for Firm Risk Management
As noted in the judgment [at Paragraph 25]:
‘…As regards the regulatory position, the delegation of tasks by the authorised individual to the unauthorised person requires proper management supervision and control, the details of which are a matter for the regulators…’
‘’This serves as a timely reminder that while supervision standards are governed by the regulator, having robust supervision frameworks in place is not merely “good practice”, it is the bedrock of our professional responsibility.’’
Semera Bibi, Solicitor