Commercial Dispute Resolution
Key contact
Key anticipated events
January
- 1 January 2026: Access to Public Domain Documents Pilot comes into force
- February 2026: Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys appeal
- 1 April 2025 to 31 March 2028: Simplified Costs Budgeting Pilot operating
January
2026
February
2026
Ongoing
News
Costs Budgeting Light
Simplified Costs Budgeting (sometimes called ‘Costs Budgeting Light’) is now running in certain courts and for certain claims.
The purpose of Costs Budgeting Light is to streamline the costs budgeting process for certain multi-track claims. It will run for three years between April 2025 and April 2028, subject to specified claims value thresholds and in limited courts. It currently applies in the Business and Property Courts in London, Manchester and Leeds; the County Courts in Manchester, Leeds and Central London (Business and Property work); and the District Registries in Central London County Court, Leeds and Bristol.
The process is simplified via the use of a simplified costs budget, a simplified budget discussion report and a simplified precedent to vary approved budgets.
There are now proposals to extend the pilot to the Business and Property District Registries in Liverpool and Newcastle, albeit with no stated timescale.
Implications for businesses
Costs Budgeting Light is designed to make litigation more accessible and proportionate for businesses. Strategically, businesses may be more willing to litigate mid-value disputes because the lighter approach is less onerous than full budgeting.
The new Precedent Z offers a simplified snapshot of expected costs, making it easier for businesses to forecast litigation spend and communicate risks to stakeholders. This also helps finance teams integrate litigation costs into corporate budgets without complex assumptions.
Public access to court documents
The Access to Public Domain Documents Pilot came into force on 1 January 2026 for a two year period in the Commercial Court, the London Circuit Commercial Court and the Financial List, to improve public access to documents that enter the public domain through their use in open court proceedings.
The proposed reforms flow from the Supreme Court judgment in Cape Intermediate Holdings Ltd v Dring [2019] UKSC 38, as well as calls for greater transparency.
The Pilot seeks to advance the principle of open justice by shifting from a regime of applying for access to court documents to a default position of pro-active disclosure via CE-File (the portal for the Business and Property Courts). It applies to key categories of documents - such as skeleton arguments, written submissions, witness statements and expert reports - and only to documents which enter the public domain via a hearing which takes place in public.
Implications for businesses
Whilst the new Practice Direction will undoubtedly achieve its stated purpose of greater transparency, it may also create issues for parties who do not wish their documents to be public. A party who wishes not to file, or to file in part only, will have to seek a 'filing modification order' to that effect before the filing deadline.
Consultation on electronic service
The Civil Procedure Review Committee (CPRC) regards the current requirement for prior written consent to e-mail service as an unnecessary obstacle which should be dispensed with. It is therefore likely that provisions will soon be put in place by which parties will have to accept service by email if they are legally represented, in default of which the claim form (and any further documents) may be served at any e-mail address.
The CPRC has now closed a consultation on proposed amendments to the CPRs, focusing on modernising the service of documents. The consultation proposed two key changes: first, requiring legal representatives who have confirmed their authority to accept service on behalf of a client to accept service by electronic means without needing further consent; and second, removing fax as a primary method of electronic service.
Implications for businesses
This consultation reflects the widespread use of email and the need to bring the service of proceedings more closely in line with modern methods of communication.
That said, discussions have already included the context and contrast between represented parties and non-represented parties, as well as the digitally excluded. At present, it is a case of ‘watch this space’ until this actually comes into force.
Law Commission review of contempt of court
The Law Commission has published recommendations on the reform of contempt of court laws and a summary of its proposals, following a lengthy review. More is to come, with part two of the report to be published in 2026.
The Law Commission’s review on the law of contempt was prompted by concerns that it had developed unsystematically, resulting in a regime that was sometimes disordered and unclear, for example the distinction between civil and criminal contempt, the multiple ways in which contempt can be committed, and the overlap between the law of contempt and criminal offences such as perverting the course of justice.
Following the publication of the consultation in July 2024, part one of the Law Commission’s report was published in autumn 2025 and addressed liability for contempt and the role of the Attorney General in contempt proceedings. Subsequently, the Law Commission published recommendations and a summary of its proposals. The proposals seek to replace the current distinction between civil and criminal contempt with four forms of contempt:
- General contempt - where the person's conduct interferes with the administration of justice in a non-trivial way or creates a substantial risk of a non-trivial interference with the administration of justice
- Contempt by breach of court order or undertaking - where the person breaches an order or undertaking, having been issued with a contempt warning
- Contempt by publication while proceedings are active - where the person publishes material which creates a substantial risk that the course of justice in active proceedings will be seriously impeded or prejudiced
- Contempt by disrupting proceedings - where the person engages in abusive, threatening or disorderly behaviour that results in the disruption of proceedings
Part two of the report will be published in 2026 and will address all remaining issues.
Implications for businesses
The recommendations aim to address the challenges posed by online communications and digital media. They are intended to promote fairness, consistency, and a balanced approach between safeguarding the right to a fair trial and protecting freedom of expression.
Further details
For further details you can visit the Law Commission website here.
Case law
The High Court decision in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys has sent shockwaves across the legal industry, particularly litigation teams
Mazur clarified the boundaries of who may conduct litigation in England and Wales. The case considered whether a litigation executive at a debt recovery firm was authorised to conduct litigation under the Legal Services Act 2007 (LSA). The court held:
- ‘Conduct of litigation’ is a reserved activity under the LSA and must be performed by an authorised person or an exempt individual
- Supervision is not enough: merely supervising non-authorised persons does not make their conduct of litigation lawful. The authorised person must genuinely be in the driving seat, making key decisions and taking responsibility
- Unauthorised persons may ‘support’ or ‘assist’ litigation, including all pre-issue work, but cannot conduct litigation
- The cost of work conducted by non-authorised persons in breach of the LSA may be irrecoverable and the firm may face regulatory consequences. In Mazur, the breach was rectified by replacing the legal executive with an authorised person, but this may not always be possible
Implications for businesses
For those organisations with in-house legal teams, Mazur has a number of significant implications:
- Businesses must ensure that only authorised persons conduct litigation. Breaches can result in criminal offences, contempt of court, regulatory action, and reputational damage
- Non-authorised persons can still provide valuable support, but clear boundaries must be maintained
- Litigation teams need to identify who is authorised and establish protocols distinguishing “conduct” (authorised only) from “support/assist” (authorised or unauthorised)
- Authorised persons must assume responsibility and exercise professional judgment in litigation matters, increasing their involvement in day-to-day activities
- Greater involvement from authorised persons may lead to increased resource needs and costs for litigation teams
- Enhanced supervision and quality control are required, but supervision alone is insufficient
- Businesses should establish audit trails to document decision-making by authorised persons at key trigger points in litigation
- Records must show that authorised persons have properly reviewed and approved work
- Staff must be trained on who can do what, the relevant policies and procedures, and the reasons for these rules to avoid breaches
Further details
In the meantime, the Court of Appeal has granted CILEX permission to appeal the judgment, on the grounds that the appeal raises “an important point of practice” with significant implications for the legal profession. The hearing is listed for February 2026.
You can access a copy of the full judgment here: Julia Mazur & Ors v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB).
Key contact
Other authors
Victoria Jones
Associate Director, Knowledge Management Lawyer
Contact us today
Whatever your legal needs, our wide ranging expertise is here to support you and your business, so let’s start your legal journey today and get you in touch with the right lawyer to get you started.
Get in touch
For general enquiries, please complete this form and we will direct your message to the most appropriate person.