header-logo header-logo

14 November 2025 / Dominic Regan
Issue: 8139 / Categories: Opinion , Profession , Legal services , Costs , Fees
printer mail-detail

The insider: 14 November 2025

235684
Mazur is still grabbing all the headlines. And rightly so, says Dominic Regan, amid rumblings that the decision was wrongly decided

There is more to litigation life than Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB), although it is impossible to avoid the torrent of material it continues to generate.

The decision is not being appealed. It is binding on masters and district judges. Regional Costs Judge Richard Lumb, speaking at the end of last month, explained that he was duty-bound to apply the decision, and said he had done so in a possession case before him where it was obvious from the costs schedule that a grade D fee earner had conducted throughout. Consequently, costs claimed in the region of £3,000 were not allowed. All that could be recovered were fixed costs which, inclusive of the court issue fee, came to less than £500.

Last week, I had the luxury of hosting a discussion about Mazur with Ben Williams KC of 4 New Square

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Firm invests in national growth with 44 appointments across five offices

NEWS
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
Employment law is shifting at the margins. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ this week, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School examines a Court of Appeal ruling confirming that volunteers are not a special legal species and may qualify as ‘workers’
Refusing ADR is risky—but not always fatal. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed and Sanjay Dave Singh of the University of Leicester analyse Assensus Ltd v Wirsol Energy Ltd: despite repeated invitations to mediate, the defendant stood firm, made a £100,000 Part 36 offer and was ultimately ‘wholly vindicated’ at trial
back-to-top-scroll