Court of Appeal blocks live stream of Mazur hearing

The Court of Appeal has made a last-ditch ruling that the widely-awaited Mazur challenge will not be live streamed on the web.

In a transmission direction order handed down on Friday, the court ruled that anyone wishing to observe the submissions remotely must request permission to do so. The order was made by the master of the rolls Sir Geoffrey Vos, chancellor of the High Court Sir Colin Birss and Lady Justice Andrews, who are hearing the appeal.

The proceedings had been expected to be shown on the Court of Appeal YouTube channel – as many of the court's hearings are – but Mazur is being treated differently. 

Unexpectedly, the court order stated that the level of public interest was the reason for imposing an extra barrier.

The order added: ‘The court anticipates there is likely to be interest from media representatives and members of the public in observing the appeal remotely. To manage the process, we have taken the initiative to set out a straightforward procedure whereby anyone who wishes to do so can make a transmission direction request.’

Anyone wanting to watch or listen remotely must now make a transmission direction request by emailing civilappeals.listing@justice.gov.uk, giving their full name, email address and location. Those outside England and Wales are likely to be denied access.

Applicants should also set out any information in support of the request, and give an undertaking to the court not to make any recording of proceedings.

The Gazette will run a live blog covering the hearing, which starts on Monday afternoon and continues on Wednesday and Thursday.

The case is arguably the most significant for the legal sector this century, as CILEX challenges the ruling of Mr Justice Sheldon from last September.

The judge concluded, as part of a costs claim, that unauthorised individuals could not conduct litigation, even under supervision, and that they would be acting unlawfully if they did. The outcome caused havoc in the legal services sector, as business models were hastily redrawn, caseloads were taken away from legal executives, paralegals and trainee solicitors and questions were asked about how people would secure access to justice when lower grade fee earners were not allowed to conduct litigation.

In the Court of Appeal hearing appellant CILEX is supported by the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers and Law Centres Network. 

The Law Society and Solicitors Regulation Authority will argue that the Mazur ruling was the correct interpretation of the Legal Services Act.