The Court of Appeal has handed down its judgment in record time in the case of Mazur & Others v Charles Russell Speechleys. The judgment upholds the appeal and confirms that non-authorised individuals may conduct litigation so long as they are supervised by an authorised individual.

We set out the background, original decision and comments on the decision being appealed in our previous blog here.  If you're not familiar with it, the original High Court decision was all about whether someone who was not appropriately authorised by a regulator of legal services could conduct litigation and, if so, the level of supervision required.

The decision

The Court of Appeal has decided that non-authorised individuals (e.g. a legal assistant or income officer) can conduct litigation without committing a criminal offence, so long as they are under appropriate supervision from an authorised individual (e.g. a solicitor or CILEX member with litigation practice rights) and that authorised individual retains responsibility for the conduct of the litigation.

The court has confirmed a list of tasks which are unlikely to amount to the conduct of litigation:

• Pre-litigation work (e.g. condition of property pre-action protocol steps)
• Giving legal advice in connection with court proceedings
• Conducting correspondence with the opposing party on behalf of clients
• Instructing and liaising with experts (e.g. surveyors) and counsel
• Signing a statement of truth in respect of a statement of case (e.g. a defence)
• Signing any other document that the court rules permit to be signed by a legal representative 

What this means for social housing providers 

The decision on appeal was made in the context of law firms and law centre staff. It did not, therefore, focus on the position of housing providers. 

However, the decision does provide some helpful clarity, which can be applied to the situation of housing providers who may draft and issue or defend large volumes of claims themselves. 

Action now needs to be taken, including:

1. Auditing what litigation is conducted by which persons in which teams.
2. Review policies and procedures where conduct of litigation is involved, which might currently be done in-house, e.g. for possession claims, issued disrepair claims and access or ASB injunctions
3. Review by in-house legal teams of their processes for supervision and approval of work by non-authorised staff 

The action required will differ depending on 

• Whether you employ an in-house legal team or an authorised individual
• What litigation is conducted by which teams/individuals and whether they are authorised and if not, whether they are supervised or not
• What you outsource to external law firms 

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