Skip to main content

We make the difference. Talk to us: 0333 004 4488 | hello@brabners.com

Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys — 5 key takeaways for social housing providers (for now)

AuthorsJosephine Morton

3 min read

Housing

A row of traditional brick houses with pitched roofs, some with dormer windows, under a partly cloudy sky, with leafless tree branches overhead and greenery in front.

In Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) (Mazur), the High Court considered whether a ‘non-authorised person’ is entitled to conduct litigation. It ultimately decided that they couldn’t by virtue of the provisions in the Legal Services Act 2007 (LSA) which reserves this activity for solicitors and a limited number of other authorised professions.

It’s important to note that Mazur hasn’t changed the legal position which remains governed by statute. It has, however, brought several questions to light and the implications for registered providers of social housing (RPs) are potentially significant as many have non-authorised persons (such as paralegals) within their legal teams.

Here, housing litigation expert Josephine Morton explores the implications of Mazur, its unanswered questions and what to watch out for as the appeal progresses. 

 

Key takeaways

  1. Mazur relates only to litigation, not to other reserved activities — although all processes should be reviewed to ensure compliance with regulation.
  2. The question of whether a person is supporting or assisting in the conduct of litigation as opposed to conducting the litigation themselves is a question of fact and degree.
  3. Tasks in litigation may be delegated but the conduct of the litigation itself may not.
  4. Ultimately, a person either needs to be authorised to conduct litigation or be exempt.
  5. An exemption in respect of advocacy (which is part of ‘conducting litigation’) includes seeking the court’s permission to exercise a right of audience. For example, a paralegal may seek permission from the court for a right of audience and — if granted — can perform advocacy without otherwise being an authorised person (as an unqualified lawyer).

 

Unanswered questions

There are still some unanswered questions for RPs. 

In particular: 

  1. Are RPs covered by the LSA when conducting litigation or not?
  2. If RPs are covered by the LSA, are their employees exempt of the restrictions by virtue of being ‘a party to the proceedings’ or by way of any other exemption?
  3. Are housing officers, income officers and similar staff permitted to prepare and issue court proceedings and/or attend court?
  4. Should any distinction be drawn between in-house legal teams and other employees of RPs or not? 

 

Appeal

Permission has been granted for CILEX — the representative body for CILEX Lawyers, Chartered Legal Executives, paralegals and other members of the legal profession — to appeal Mazur, with the Court of Appeal listing a hearing for 24 February 2026 for submissions. Judgment will likely follow at some point after that. It’s also of note that the Law Society has intervened to be part of the appeal. CILEX will argue that Mazur was wrongly decided and has created too much uncertainty in the legal services sector. 

Those affected may wish to review their processes now and keep an eye on the upcoming judgment.

 

Talk to us

With uncertainty likely to continue until the appeal is resolved, many providers will be taking the opportunity to review their internal processes. Our housing and communities team has extensive experience advising RPs on litigation, governance and compliance and can help you to prepare for the potential outcomes.

If you want to understand how the appeal may affect your organisation, talk to us by calling 0333 004 4488, emailing hello@brabners.com or completing our contact form below.

Josephine Morton

Josephine is a Partner and the joint head of our housing team, leading our housing litigation sub-team.

Read more
Josephine Morton

Talk to us

Loading form...

Related insights