The Mazur case decided by the High Court last year took the legal profession and its regulators by surprise, causing significant disruption and uncertainty around to the extent to which non-authorised people can be involved in conducting litigation. The decision was appealed and the Court of Appeal hearing took place last week.

Background

A law firm (CRS) carried out some legal work for Ms Mazur. She did not pay the CRS’s bill and another law firm (GBS) was instructed to recover the debt. Ms Mazur objected to the fact that the individual who was running the claim for GBS, Mr M, was not an authorised lawyer.   

The High Court decided that Mr M as a non-authorised person was not entitled to conduct the claim under the supervision of an authorised person, even though he worked for an authorised law firm.  This came as a shock to many and has led to huge disruption, even redundancies, for many persons who are not formally authorised, including chartered legal executives and other extremely capable practitioners. 

The appeal

The inevitable and hotly anticipated appeal in the Mazur case took place between 24 and 27 February 2026. Most of the arguments came from the Law Society, the Solicitors Regulation Authority, CILEX and the Legal Services Board, all of which are involved in the regulation of legal services providers.  The courtroom was packed, and the Law Society Gazette delivered a running commentary summarising submissions throughout the appeal. It was also followed live by many others online. 

The Court of Appeal heard various submissions about whether the original judgment had struck the right balance about who could conduct litigation and what supervision looks like. The appeal judgment is reserved and will be published at a later date, with no indication of the date it will be issued, so the wait for clarity goes on.

What this means for housing associations

The legal arguments were mainly focused on how the law applies to people who work in law firms or law centres. For this reason, the appeal is, in our view, unlikely to bring much clarity for organisations such as housing associations, which are not legal services providers, but which draft and issue large volumes of legal claims themselves, e.g. rent arrears possession claims and occasionally anti-social behaviour and access injunctions.

It is however, possible that the submissions on behalf of Law Centres, which, like most housing associations, are not-for-profit bodies may help. Their arguments about the extent of supervision required by an authorised lawyer of non-qualified persons may help housing associations that employ in-house lawyers to provide supervision.

However, none of the parties making submissions in the appeal were in the position that many housing associations are in, namely, large amounts of litigation being conducted by teams where there is no authorised person supervising.  The appeal judgment may therefore be of limited impact to housing associations in this position.

In summary, we expect further clarity when the appeal judgment is handed down. Ultimately, though, a change in the law might be necessary to permit housing associations to continue their current practices and mirror the specific statutory powers local authority employees enjoy, for e.g. rent possession claims to ensure minimal costs for both landlords and tenants. 

We have been giving detailed advice to housing associations in England and Wales on this issue.  For support with this, please contact Helen Tucker or Doug Mullen.