No Mazur exception in family court

In Re XX v GH (Legal Services Act 2007 Exemption) [2026] EWFC 51 (B) in February, Judge Farquhar refused to grant a Legal Services Act 2007 exemption to allow Lisa Burton-Durham, group director of Family Law Partners, to conduct litigation. This was due to Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys [2025] EWHC 2341, which held non-authorised individuals can assist but not conduct litigation.

Judge Farquhar said Burton-Durham—a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives (CILEX) since 2006—was ‘a very experienced practitioner dealing with financial remedy cases and she regularly instructs both junior and senior counsel and has been involved in highly complex cases’.

Counsel for XX argued for exemption to be granted as ‘a fair, just and appropriate way of ensuring that the applicant can continue to be represented by her chosen lawyer, without added delay or cost’, because her legal experience provided sufficient safeguards, and in keeping with the Family Procedure Rules’ overriding objective of saving time and expense.

However, Judge Farquhar held that, while he was ‘entirely satisfied’ Burton-Durham was ‘fully capable to conduct litigation’, he must give ‘due deference’ to the will of Parliament.

‘Mazur has made it clear as to how the will of Parliament is to be interpreted. Ms Burton-Durham, in keeping with a large number of other Chartered Legal Executives, is not authorised to conduct litigation. There is now a route by which Ms Burton-Durham and others in her position can be granted such authorisation.

‘I am satisfied that a refusal to grant an exemption in this case will cause difficulties for Ms Burton-Durham and her client but that cannot be the test to apply as otherwise the exemption would be granted in every such case.’