The Court of Appeal, in CILEX v Mazur and others [2026] EWCA Civ 369, has overturned the high-profile High Court ruling in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB),  which caused widespread disruption, suggesting many standard law firm practices were illegal and putting costs recovery at risk.

The Chartered Institute of Legal Executives challenged the decision, arguing it was impractical, hindered access to justice, and misunderstood the nature of legal delegation. The judgment provides clarity on the ability of authorised persons to delegate litigation tasks to unauthorised staff.

In summary, the Court of Appeal ruling decided that:

• it is not unlawful for unauthorised persons, such as paralegals, trainees, or legal executives without independent rights, to conduct litigation, provided they do so under the appropriate supervision of an authorised individual;
• a strict, narrow interpretation of the Legal Services Act 2007, as adopted in the 2025 High Court judgment, was incorrect and therefore rejected;
• the key factor is that the authorised individual retains ultimate responsibility and exercises professional judgment over the litigation, rather than whether they personally perform every single act;
• while delegating is allowed, it must be supported by appropriate arrangements for the supervision of and delegation to an unauthorised person.

The Court of Appeal decision is a relief for many firms, particularly those using paralegals and legal executives to handle day-to-day litigation tasks. However, firms should maintain robust documentation of their supervision procedures to ensure they can demonstrate appropriate oversight, as the distinction between supporting and conducting litigation remains a matter of fact and degree.

The Law Society, the Solicitors Regulation Authority and Chartered Institute of Legal Executives are updating their guidance and practice notes to align with the Court of Appeal's ruling. The Law Society guidance is here: Mazur and the conduct of litigation. CILEX have a Mazur Judgment Information Hub.

The Employment Rights Act 2025, which received Royal Assent in December 2025, will bring in sweeping and significant changes to employment law over the course of this year and 2027. 

In April 2026 initial changes include:

• Day 1 rights for paternity leave and unpaid parental leave;
• Statutory Sick Pay to be paid from the first day of sickness and the lower earnings limit removed;
• Stronger protections, including that workers who report sexual harassment may be protected as whistleblowers;
• Guidance for employers of 250 employees or more to voluntarily put in place gender pay and menopause action plans; and
• The establishment of the Fair Work Agency which will take over enforcement of specific employment rights.

The By Lawyers Employment guide has been updated to include practical guidance on navigating these changes. We will continue to update our guides and precedents as further changes are brought about under the Act.

The Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 (the Act) introduced significant reforms for leaseholders including:

• 990-year lease terms;
• abolition of the marriage value;
• capped ground rents;
• removal of landlords’ costs recovery.

However, implementation remains uncertain.

In ARC Time Freehold Income Authorised Fund & Ors v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government [2025] EWHC 2751 (Admin), landlords challenged the reforms on human rights grounds. 

Although the High Court dismissed the claim in October 2025, the Court of Appeal has now granted landlords permission to appeal on all grounds.

Key points to note:

• The appeal creates further uncertainty as to when the Act will come into force because it is likely to take several months to resolve.
• Further, the reforms will require secondary legislation, likely to delay implementation by several years.
• Leaseholders may continue to face higher costs in the meantime.
• Landlords face potential impacts on asset values.

While the Act proposes abolishing marriage value, the Secretary of State may introduce revised deferment and capitalisation rates. These could affect valuation outcomes and, in some cases, increase premiums.

For leaseholders approaching the 80-year threshold before marriage value kicks in, it may be prudent to act now given the ongoing uncertainty.

By Lawyers will continue to monitor developments.