Turner v Coupland Cavendish Ltd: Court of Appeal bars Part 18 requests on ATE commissions in solicitor and client assessments

The Court of Appeal has ruled that a costs judge conducting a solicitor and own client assessment has no power to order answers about alleged secret commissions on after the event (ATE) insurance.

In Turner v Coupland Cavendish Ltd [2026] EWCA Civ 1204, Lady Justice Andrews gave the leading judgement, with Lord Justice Phillips and Lord Justice Lewison agreeing. Erica Bedford and Thomas Mason appeared for the firm, trading as Gowing Law, and Robin Dunne and Priya Gopal for the former client, Mr Turner.

Mr Turner had challenged his solicitors' bill under section 70 of the Solicitors Act 1974 and served an 18-question Part 18 request asking whether they had received any commission or fee from the ATE insurer. The firm did not answer. Costs Judge Rowley refused to order a response, partly because the request itself was not before him. Sweeting J reversed that decision, holding that queries about the cash account placed it in dispute.

Andrews LJ described the firm's refusal to say whether it received a commission as unattractive and unwise, noting that a fiduciary ought to answer such a question. But the procedure adopted was impermissible. The premium was £245, and a commission of around 10% would have left about £25 in issue, so the client had no real economic interest in costly satellite litigation.

The court held that the assessment proceedings concern the solicitor's bill and the costs of the assessment. Under section 70(7) and paragraph 6.19 of Practice Direction 46, the costs judge certifies what is due, a largely arithmetical exercise that takes account only of payments on account and sums the solicitor may set against the bill. The cash account is separate from the bill, as Herbert v HH Law Ltd confirmed. Entries for ATE premiums, and any alleged omission of a commission, are irrelevant to that task. A dispute about whether a secret commission was received is not, and could not be, a matter in dispute in the proceedings. The court also relied on Jones v Slade and on the 19th century authorities Jones v James and Cooper v Ewart, which confined the taxing master to matters connected with the bills.

Andrews LJ agreed with Sweeting J that the Part 18 threshold is not the stricter test for specific disclosure. However, a genuine dispute must exist when the request is made, and the request must be necessary and proportionate. A hypothetical secret commission was not enough. The Judge was also wrong to say that the solicitor must satisfy the court of the cash account's accuracy, which is presumed unless there is good reason to doubt it.

The court held that Edwards v Slater and Gordon UK Ltd, in which Ritchie J ordered similar answers in the Raubenheimer appeal, was wrongly decided and had been decided per incuriam, because Jones v James was not cited. Andrews LJ accepted that the overriding objective drove that decision, but said jurisdiction cannot be conferred by pragmatism.

Separately, the Costs Judge's refusal was an unimpeachable case management decision, since no formal application had been made and the questions were not before him. Mr Turner's objection that the firm had served no respondent's notice failed because the issue went to jurisdiction, applying Fage UK Ltd v Chobani UK Ltd.

Clients who suspect undisclosed commissions must therefore start proceedings for an account or complain to the Legal Ombudsman. Andrews LJ acknowledged the unfairness of requiring a client to produce evidence in order to obtain it, and flagged the gap for the rules committee or Parliament. The appeal was allowed.