The conclusion of the Mazur appeal gives us a moment to pause and reflect on just how significant the past few months have been for our members and for the wider PI community.
What began as a single High Court judgment quickly became a source of deep anxiety across the sector, unsettling long-established working practices and placing an unexpected burden on individuals and firms already operating under intense pressure. For many paralegal and CILEX-qualified lawyers, the uncertainty was tangible - it affected their day-to-day work, their professional identity, and their confidence in the stability of their roles.
As the implications of the original ruling became clearer, so too did the scale of the challenge facing the profession. Conversations with APIL members revealed not only the operational disruption but also the personal toll: the worry about compliance, the strain on teams, and the fear that years of experience could be undermined overnight. It was against this backdrop that the appeal took on such significance, offering a crucial opportunity to restore clarity and reaffirm the value of the diverse workforce that underpins personal injury practice.
The CILEX appeal provided the profession with the opportunity to restore clarity and stability to the law on who may conduct litigation. APIL was one of only three interveners granted permission to make oral submissions, and the only intervener representing the claimant PI sector. Our submissions were supported by extensive evidence in a detailed witness statement. This included a mapped history of the reforms that have reshaped the sector over recent decades, demonstrating the considerable challenges firms have faced in adapting their business models. We provided evidence of the financial pressures created by fixed costs, particularly those that have not been uprated for inflation. With the support of APIL Corporate Supporters and other key firms, we presented unique data showing the proportions of authorised and non-authorised fee-earners working across the sector, highlighting the scale of disruption caused by the Mazur judgment.
In a unanimous judgment delivered by Sir Colin Birss, the Chancellor of the High Court, the Court of Appeal held that “an unauthorised person can lawfully perform any tasks, which are within the scope of the conduct of litigation, for and on behalf of an authorised individual such as a solicitor or appropriately authorised CILEX member.” This is a decisive rejection of the High Court’s earlier interpretation.
For our members - particularly those without independent litigation rights - the judgment provides welcome reassurance that they can lawfully perform any tasks, which are within the scope of the conduct of litigation, for and on behalf of an authorised individual such as a solicitor or appropriately authorised CILEX member, so long as the authorised individual retains responsibility for the tasks delegated. In those circumstances unauthorised staff are not committing an offence when performing litigation tasks for and on behalf of an authorised person.
It is crucial that firms put in place appropriate arrangements for effective supervision. Regulators will determine the appropriate level of supervision, which may vary depending on the complexity of the work and we will seek to work with regulators on this. The judgment restores a workable, realistic framework for litigation teams and reaffirms the essential contribution of unauthorised professionals to the justice system. Most importantly, it brings certainty back to a sector that has spent months grappling with confusion and operational strain.
For our members, this is a significant and positive step forward. Working alongside CILEX and the Law Centres Network, APIL helped to demonstrate the scale of the disruption caused by the original ruling and the importance of restoring a workable, modern interpretation of the law.
The Court itself recognised that it had received “much fuller argument than either of the courts below,” a reflection of the combined efforts of the interveners. APIL’s evidence - drawing on member experiences, sector data, and the practical demands of PI litigation - played a meaningful role in helping the Court reach a decision that restores stability for the profession.
The judgment is a testament to the strength of collective action. APIL’s contribution ensured that the voices of practitioners were heard at the highest level, and the outcome reflects the realities of how our sector works in practice.
We will continue to work closely with regulators and members as updated guidance emerges. For now, the judgment represents a significant step forward in safeguarding the stability of the PI workforce and ensuring that firms can continue to deliver high-quality services to injured people.
Our sincere thanks go to all those involved in this work, our volunteer board members, those individuals that have shared their unique stories, APIL Corporate supporters and other key firms that have provided us with data and insight. And much appreciation goes of course to our legal team, Ben Williams KC, Matthew Waszak and Theo Barclay of 4 New Square Chambers along with Oliver Studdert and Oliver Carter at Irwin Mitchell.
This is what we achieve when our community stands behind us.