Where the Law Now Stands
An unauthorised person may lawfully carry out tasks that fall within the conduct of litigation, provided the work is done for and on behalf of an authorised individual who retains direction, control and responsibility for it. On that footing it is the authorised individual who is “carrying on” the conduct of litigation, and the delegation is lawful.
That is the position established by the Court of Appeal in CILEX and others v Mazur and others [2026] EWCA Civ 369, handed down on 31 March 2026 by the Master of the Rolls Sir Geoffrey Vos, the Chancellor Sir Colin Birss and Lady Justice Andrews. It reversed a first-instance decision that had unsettled the way most litigation practices are staffed.
What the High Court Had Decided
In September 2025 Sheldon J held that unqualified fee earners do not have the right to conduct litigation even when supervised by a qualified person. On that reading, a non-authorised person could only support an authorised person, and could not carry out a reserved legal activity under supervision or as an employee.
The consequence was substantial. Paralegals, trainees, legal executives and outsourced support all sat somewhere in the analysis, and firms had to ask whether long-standing delegation arrangements were lawful at all.
What the Court of Appeal Decided
The Court of Appeal disagreed unanimously. The words that matter in the statutory scheme are about direction and control of, and responsibility for, the relevant tasks. Where an authorised individual retains those things, the tasks may be performed by someone unauthorised without the unauthorised person carrying on a reserved legal activity.
Supervision must be real and proportionate rather than nominal. What that requires depends on the circumstances: at one end, approval before steps are taken; at the other, regular meetings with sampling of the work. Complexity and risk set the level.
What It Means for Costs Work
For claimant firms instructing outside costs support, the practical answer is reassuring and was never seriously in doubt for drafting work: preparing a bill of costs, a Precedent H budget, Points of Dispute or Replies is work done for and on behalf of the instructing firm, which retains conduct of the matter throughout.
What the appeal changes is the confidence with which that can be said. Between September 2025 and March 2026 the answer depended on where a particular task fell in a contested analysis. It now depends on something a firm controls directly: whether the authorised individual genuinely retained responsibility.
The distinction between a regulated and an unregulated costs provider is separate from this, and worth understanding on its own terms. We set it out in costs draftsman or Costs Lawyer: which do you actually need.
What Instructing Firms Should Do
- Check that the supervising individual is authorised and is actually supervising.
- Make the arrangement proportionate to the complexity and risk of the matter.
- Record on the file who directed the work, not merely who carried it out.
- Keep delegation arrangements written down rather than assumed.
- Remember that responsibility cannot be delegated with the task — that is the whole point of the test.
How DMD Costs Works
DMD Costs is drafting-only support for claimant solicitor firms. We prepare bills, budgets, Points of Dispute and Replies for and on behalf of the instructing firm, which retains conduct of the matter throughout. We provide no advocacy and act for no lay clients.
If you have a bill to draw or a budget to prepare, send us the file and we will confirm the fixed fee before any work begins.
A Note on Sources
The Court of Appeal citation and hand-down date above are taken from the appeal judgment as reported. Where this note describes the first-instance decision it does so by judge and month rather than by neutral citation, because the two are frequently confused and only the appeal now states the law.