What is the Mazur judgment? Court of Appeal ruling explained

• A significant High Court ruling that restricted who could perform tasks in legal proceedings has been overturned by the UK’s Court of Appeal, a decision hailed as "the most consequential judgment for legal services in recent history.
• Last September, Mr Justice Sheldon had concluded that unauthorised individuals, such as paralegals and trainee solicitors, were not permitted to carry out tasks involved in taking legal action, even under supervision.
• However, in a judgment delivered on Tuesday, the Court of Appeal reversed this decision. It affirmed that unauthorised individuals can lawfully perform such tasks "for and on behalf of an authorised individual," including solicitors or authorised legal executives.
• The Chartered Institute of Legal Executives (Cilex), the professional body representing legal executives, had spearheaded the challenge against the High Court’s initial ruling, which its lawyers described as having sent "shockwaves" through the profession.
• The original legal dispute that prompted the High Court’s initial ruling involved a costs disagreement between Charles Russell Speechlys LLP (CRS) and former clients Julia Mazur and Jerome Stuart.