The High Court decision in Mazur and another v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) has certainly set alarm bells ringing. In a totally different context, Lord Denning said in Tiverton Estates Ltd v Wearwell Ltd [1975] Ch 146 that a previous decision of the Court of Appeal ‘sounded an alarm bell in the offices of every solicitor in the land. And no wonder.’ More recently, on the subject of Mazur, John Gould said ‘expressions of alarm have been sounding like klaxons’ (in ‘Delegation v dereliction of duty?’, NLJ, 31 October 2025, pp15-16).
Of course, the decision in Mazur could be altered on appeal (or it could be revisited in another case). However, the hearing appears to have been somewhat chaotic—a litigant in person, the judge inviting regulators to intervene, and the fact that a major question was costs. Perhaps because the judge invited regulators into the case, it became
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=28793f10_1)
