Author name: Simon Gibbs

The new Senior Court Costs Office Guide 2025 has just been published. However, the Foreword is dated 18 August 2025 and the Guide was therefore presumably written some time before that. This is unfortunate. If it had been drafted post-Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB), a little more care might […]

The 2025 version of the Senior Court Costs Office Guide is now available.

Webinar from Kings Chambers’ Kevin Latham and Fraser Barnstaple breaking down the ratio underpinning the decision in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP and considering the potential ramifications for unqualified fee earners, CILEX fellows who do not hold practice rights, costs draftspeople and their employers, in both substantive and costs litigation.  

How likely are you to be sent to prison in light of Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB)? Section 14 of the Legal Servies Act 2007 states: “Offence to carry on a reserved legal activity if not entitled (1) It is an offence for a person to carry on an

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

What steps should law firms take to ensure they do not fall foul of Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB)? Obviously, the starting point is that all litigated cases must be run by an authorised fee earner. Unauthorised fee earners can assist but not conduct the litigation themselves, even

Chartered Legal Executives are one group that have been significantly impacted by Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB). It appears that not all Charted Legal Executives are created equally. Those who now qualify via the CILEX Professional Qualification acquire the right to conduct litigation as part of qualification process.

Let us assume that the worst has come to the worst and all work undertaken on a case was performed by an unauthorised fee earner. Where does that leave the issue of costs recovery in light of Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB)? Firstly, as we have already explored

What does Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) mean for unauthorised costs draftsmen? I would suggest very little. (Separately, authorised Costs Lawyers have the right to conduct litigation (so far as it relates to costs matters).) Steps such as drafting Bills of Costs, Points of Dispute, Replies and Costs Budgets

What does Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) mean for advocacy? The short answer is: nothing. And I do not mean that just in the sense that Mazur was only meant to clarify the existing law as opposed to creating new law. Mazur was concerned with the discrete issue of