LIVE: Court of Appeal hears submissions on day two of crucial Mazur case

11:51am: We're now on APIL ground 2 - Baxter. Williams says it was wrong on the expansion of the conduct of litigation. Mazur and Baxter 'risks the perfect storm'. 

11:42am The TV screen just spoke! 'Waiting for the conference host to join. If you are the conferende host, please enter the pin number now.' Hopefully the remote link is working smoothly for the currently 270 people tuned in.

11:36am: Williams talking about the phrase "proceedings in chambers" which appears in the Legal Services Act. Williams says that term, by 2007, was obsolete for almost a decade. The act uses redundant terminology 'but we all know what it means'. Vos says that in the old days, you could knock on the master's door and ask if you could come in to hear the proceedings. Williams: 'And you would have to duck to avoid the flying white book.'

11:16am: Nicholas Bacon KC has finished submissions for CILEX. Ben Williams KC now making submissions on behalf of the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers. Not gonna lie, he's talking at what feels like 200 words an hour so I'll struggle to capture everything. Williams going through ground one at the moment: the proposition that there was no intention to change the settled position. Non-authorised staff can conduct litigation under supervision. APIL says there are clear textual indications that the Legal Services Act 2007 was not intended to alter that.

11:13am: Postman Pat's back! Discussing the formal steps of proceedings, Bacon says: 'Service, we say, is a formal step. But the mechanical act of Postman Pat taking it to where it needs to be taken is the mechanical step, which is not conduct of litigation. But formal service of documents is.'

11:11am: Bacon says users of litigation services who log on to different websites to find out what the lawful position is are getting different answers, which isn't satisfactory. As a frontline regulator, Bacon says CILEX isn't ashamed to have sought permission to intervene in this case. 'We were not invited to appear in the court below. The Law Society and SRA were invited to do so. That's not a criticism of them. What is worth saying, certainly in Baxter CILEX were invited to make representations. They did not make many but they did.' Bacon says it's surprising the Law Society and SRA didn't suggest CILEX make representations in the lower court for Mazur. 'But you're here now,' Vos replies.

11:08am: To give you an indication of the level of interest in this case, there are 259 people tuning into this hearing remotely. Approaching 50 people (mostly lawyers, unsurprisingly) in the room.

10:57am: Bacon taking the court through various authorities. There was mention of Postman Pat delivering documents. Think that was Bacon explaining a case in a way the rest of us (and by 'the rest of us', I mean me) can understand. I don't think Postman Pat actually features in the case. In another case, Bacon says the Court of Appeal talks about the formal steps in the proceedings being the touchstone of what's meant by the conduct of litigation. That was the approach adopted in Agassi (I'm guessing not the tennis player), also the approach adopted by the court in AUH. 'Where it all goes wrong is when we get to Baxter.' Ben Williams KC, for APIL, will be taking the court through Baxter later today.

10:44am: Bacon takes us through a House of Lords judgment that makes 'patently clear... that the machinery of justice does not prevent delegation of the kind we're talking about today'. Bacon says the solicitor effectively went on holiday and left the conduct of litigation to the managing clerk.

10:40am: Bacon says Ainsworth sets the foundation for litigants in person. You cannot delegate your entitlements as a litigant in person. We see this through exemptions in the Legal Services Act 2007 in schedule 3. That's different from a solicitor who has a right to conduct litigation and carry on the conduct of litigation. They can clearly delegate work, activities, but not their entitlement. 

10:31am: And we're off. Judges have entered. Nicholas Bacon KC on his feet, continuing submissions for CILEX, which is leading this appeal. Bacon taking the court through Ainsworth, the first of the litigant in person cases. The case is about what a litigant in person can do. The litigant in this case delegated work to an auctioneer.

10:15am: I'm in! Huge shoutout to Helen Evans KC of 4 New Square Chambers (who's part of the legal team representing CILEX) for listing everyone not just in her legal team but for the other parties making submissions in this monumental case.

10am: Counting roughly 30 people waiting outside court 71 to get in. But guess who's at the front?!

9.45am: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to our live coverage of the Mazur appeal from the Royal Courts of Justice. You're probably thinking, 'Who are you? Where's John Hyde?!' Fear not, John, who has been closely covering this case, will be back tomorrow. I'll do my best to report on today's proceedings. The hearing, which began on Monday afternoon, resumes at 10.30am before master of the rolls Sir Geoffrey Vos, chancellor of the High Court Lord Justice Birss and Lady Justice Andrews. Wish me luck elbowing all the lawyers out of the way so I can bag a seat in court 71.

CILEX, who is leading this appeal, will be continuing its submissions this morning, followed by the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers and Law Centres Network, who both favour the appeal.  The Law Society, Solicitors Regulation Authority and Julia Mazur will argue in favour of upholding the High Court decision.

A reminder for you (and me) on what this case is about: last September, Mr Justice Sheldon ruled in Mazur that litigation was a reserved activity and as such could be conducted only by authorised individuals. Appealing the judgment, CILEX argues that in the Legal Services Act parliament never intended to alter the settled position that solicitors could conduct litigation through unauthorised but supervised staff.