There have been a number of commentators suggesting that parties may start to reopen costs orders, or even judgments in the underlying litigation, in light of Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB).
The arguments would presumably be either:
- the underlying claim/defence would have been struck out if it had been known that an unauthorised fee earner had unlawfully had conduct of the litigation; or
- the paying party would not have agreed costs or the court would not have assessed (whether by summary or detailed assessment) costs as they did if it had been known that an unauthorised fee earner had unlawfully had conduct of the litigation.
I struggle to see these arguments having much traction.
The important point is that Mazur did not purport to create new law. It was doing no more than clarifying the correct interpretation of the Legal Services Act 2007. It would always have been open to parties to take issue with unauthorised fee earners having conduct of litigation and/or seeking recovery of the costs of such work. The fact that parties historically did not take a good point (if that is what it is) would not be a reason to reopen settled litigation. Parties cannot argue ignorance of the law as a justification for having a second chance.
Discover more from Legal Costs Specialists - Gibbs Wyatt Stone
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
1 thought on “Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys – will settled cases be reopened?”
So an unauthorised person conducts litigation and once the matter has been concluded say submits a claim for costs of 120k which are agreed and paid at 100k. Prima facie the paralegal has committed a criminal offence although there will be no trial and no conviction.
It seems to me the contract is based on a crime and is therefore illegal, void and unenforceable from the moment it was made.
If the costs were assessed by the court then an application could be made to have the decision set aside on the basis of the doctrine of ex turpi causa.
Either way this would be enough to have the money repaid together with interest on the strength of a letter before action. If this didn’t work then the resulting proceedings may have some allegations of fraud lobbed in depending on the circumstances.
I doubt in these circumstances there will be issues with limitation.