MR STEPHEN TURNER v COUPLAND CAVENDISH LIMITED
Decision date: 21 September 2026
Neutral citation: Neutral citation not available
Court: Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Insurance classification confidence: high
Overall AI summary confidence: medium
Short overview
A short description of the case, material issue, and outcome where supported by the judgment.
AI confidence in this overview: medium
This appeal concerns a former client’s attempt to compel his former solicitors to answer whether they received a commission from an ATE insurer by using a Part 18 request in SOCA/Part 8 costs proceedings about the solicitor’s bill. The Court of Appeal held the Part 18 Request was not directed to a "matter in dispute in the proceedings" and the costs judge had no power to require answers about cash-account items that were not payments on account of the bill; the appeal was allowed. The court noted solicitors, as fiduciaries, should disclose such payments if asked but observed there is no easy, low‑cost remedy where a solicitor refuses.
Ratio decidendi
The legal reasoning necessary to the outcome, where it can safely be identified from the judgment.
AI confidence in this ratio summary: medium
The costs judge had no power, within a costs assessment/SOCA, to order inquiries or require answers about items on the solicitor’s cash account that are not payments on account of the bill or otherwise relevant to the amount due in respect of the assessed costs; a Part 18 request about such matters is not a legitimate "matter in dispute in the proceedings."
Obiter dicta
Judicial observations that were not necessary to the outcome, where they can safely be identified.
AI confidence in this obiter summary: medium
The judgment contains observations that (a) a solicitor who receives a commission ought to tell the client and (b) the current procedural rules may leave an unsatisfactory gap for clients seeking disclosure of small commissions, which may warrant consideration by the Rules Committee or Parliament.
Warning
The automated summary was prepared from selected parts of a longer judgment; consult the original decision for the complete reasoning. The middle of the judgment was omitted; as a result, any detailed intermediate reasoning or additional factual findings in that omitted portion are not reflected here.