Coupland: Concerned about impact of ruling on legal system
The Court of Appeal has granted CILEX permission to appeal against the Mazur judgment.
Although not party to the original proceedings, CILEX applied for permission earlier this month, relying on the Court of Appeal’s discretion to permit an appeal brought by a person adversely affected by the outcome.
In granting permission, the court said it did not need to form a view on the appeal’s prospects of success as it “raises an important point of practice and its significance to the legal profession as a whole is a compelling reason for an appeal to be heard”.
The expectation is that the hearing will be listed for the first half of 2026, once possible intervenors make their intentions known.
CILEX chief executive Jennifer Coupland said: “It is great news that the Court of Appeal has acted quickly and recognised the need for a detailed examination of the issues raised by the Mazur ruling.
“We have already seen the significant impact it is having, not only on our members but on law firms more widely. We are also concerned about the longer-term impact on access to justice, diversity in the legal profession and the efficient running of the legal system.
“CILEX will now have the opportunity to present its argument that Mazur was wrongly decided. In addition, the uncertainties that have resulted from this judgment will be fully ventilated and determined through the appeal process.”
Permission was granted on the basis that the respondents, Julia Mazur and Jerome Stuart, would in no circumstances be liable to pay CILEX’s costs or those of any other party.
Both the Law Society and Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) intervened in the High Court. Law Society president Mark Evans said: “We are considering the proposed grounds of appeal and their implications in light of the views that have been expressed by so many of our members over recent weeks. We will issue a further statement in due course.” We have asked the SRA for comment.
Last Friday, CILEx Regulation Ltd (CRL) revealed that, now it could authorise standalone litigation practice rights, approaching 600 chartered legal executives have now applied them – nearly 350 by submitting portfolios and over 250 by booking onto ULaw’s December and January assessment-only courses.
The regulator added that the first portfolio applications have been approved; these were submitted under the previous single litigation and advocacy route but applicants chose to decouple the litigation rights.
“We have invested heavily in our capacity and capability to process high numbers of portfolio applications,” CRL said.
“We have hired and trained new external assessors and re-engineered our processes to reduce inefficiencies and offer earlier feedback.”
It added that ULaw would announce new assessment dates soon.
Bob 
Barry Baines 
Matthew 
I am a member of the public affected by this; I thought the CLE I was using for my Contentious litigation case was a Solicitor anyhow but now the solicitor firm has told me that I need to transfer the case to a new solicitor firm as she no longer can litigate and the solicitor firm has no other solicitors who have any expertise or competence in litigation practice. I have submitted a complaint as the solicitor firm falsely advertises itself to have expertise and top solicitors that practice for them, including Contentious Litigation, but now I am being expected to pay to start again with a new solicitor firm and pay for the new solicitor to read the files to get up to speed, this firm are refusing any financial compensation to cover just the new solicitor reading the documents to be able to continue the work which I feel is wholly unfair on the customer. I’m not asking for a full refund just a refund of the document reading to take over the case seeing as this firm claim they don’t have solicitors! Really disappointing. Obviously I am now going to have to take my complaint to the financial Ombudsman.