An update on Mazur

Mazur and its consequences

The following note gives a brief overview of the case and its issues, it should not be viewed as legal advice. Readers should seek their own advice, if they have any doubt as to the effect of the case on their particular working arrangements.

There has been a great deal of commentary in the press since the case of Mazur, with diverging opinions and a sense of despair from certain parts of the legal and recoveries sectors.

The issues in this case were somewhat narrow and the existing case law was not explored at length.

The key feature to take away from this is the following;

The decision in Mazur clearly delineates between;

a non-authorised person supporting an authorised solicitor/person in conducting litigation which is permitted, and

a non-authorised person conducting litigation under the supervision of an authorised solicitor/person which is not permitted.

What is meant by conducting litigation?

There are a number of pre-existing cases that refer to this such as the case of Agassi. However these cases are disparate in their nature and do not provide a definitive definition of what conducting litigation means. Therefore, any organisation must be cautious in their approach to case conduct.

The operating methods of organisations in this sector will be diverse but to summarise this simply, an authorised person must conduct litigation, although they can be assisted. Until there is a change to legislation and or a successful appeal working

practices must be compliant with the principle of an authorised person having the conduct of same albeit with or with the assistance of others.