Turner v Coupland Cavendish Ltd [2026] EWCA Civ 1204
The Court of Appeal has provided important clarification on the scope of solicitor and own client assessments (“SOCA”) and, in particular, whether CPR Part 18 can be used to obtain information about possible commissions received by solicitors in connection with after the event (“ATE”) insurance.
In Turner v Coupland Cavendish Ltd [2026] EWCA Civ 1204, the Court held that solicitor/client assessment proceedings cannot be used as a vehicle to obtain information about matters which are not genuinely in dispute within those proceedings.
The decision draws a clear distinction between the assessment of a solicitor’s bill and wider claims concerning a solicitor’s fiduciary duties – while also leaving an interesting question as to what practical remedy is available to a client who suspects that an undisclosed commission has been received.
Background
Mr Turner instructed Coupland Cavendish Ltd, trading as Gowing Law, following a road traffic accident. His claim settled for £3,000 damages.
ATE insurance had been arranged in connection with the claim. The premium was £245.
Mr Turner subsequently commenced proceedings under section 70 of the Solicitors Act 1974 for assessment of his former solicitors’ bill. Within those proceedings, his new representatives served a Request for Further Information under CPR Part 18.
Among the information sought was whether the solicitors had received any payment – whether by way of commission, discount, rebate, referral or marketing fee – from the ATE insurer, an intermediary or an associated party.
The request was advanced on the basis that the cash account was “in dispute” and that the information was required in order to establish whether it accurately reflected the position.
The Costs Judge refused to order the solicitors to answer the request. On appeal, the High Court reversed that decision and directed that the request be answered.
The solicitors appealed to the Court of Appeal.
What is actually in dispute in a solicitor/client assessment?
The central issue was the proper scope of the assessment proceedings.
CPR 18.1 allows the Court to order a party to clarify, or give additional information about, a matter which is in dispute in the proceedings.
That qualification proved crucial.
The Court of Appeal emphasised that proceedings under section 70 are concerned with the assessment of the solicitor’s bill: principally whether the costs claimed were reasonably incurred and reasonable in amount.
The cash account has a different function. It provides the financial information necessary for the Costs Judge ultimately to calculate and certify the balance due to or by the solicitor following assessment.
It does not, simply by forming part of that process, open the door to a wider investigation into every transaction or possible omission from the account.
As Lady Justice Andrews explained, a dispute about costs is not the same thing as a dispute about whether the cash account is accurate or complete.
Part 18 cannot be used to find a separate claim
That distinction was decisive.
There was no dispute about the accuracy of the figures actually appearing in Mr Turner’s cash account. Instead, the Part 18 request sought information which might establish that other sums – namely an undisclosed commission or other financial benefit – should have been accounted for.
The Court considered that this was, in substance, an attempt to obtain information about a potential separate claim rather than clarification of an issue which the Costs Judge was required to determine in the assessment.
CPR Part 18 could not be used for that purpose.
The Court therefore held that the request did not concern a “matter in dispute in the proceedings” and there was no power to compel a response within the SOCA.
Importantly, simply asserting that a cash account is “in dispute” does not make it so. There must be an identifiable issue which the Court is required to resolve in the proceedings.
Nor can the cash account be used as a route to turn a relatively confined costs assessment into a wider investigation of potential breaches of fiduciary duty.
What can a Costs Judge consider?
The judgment also provides useful guidance on the role of the cash account.
When determining the balance due following an assessment, the relevant matters include payments already made on account of costs and sums held for the client which can properly be applied towards the solicitor’s costs.
There may therefore be genuine disputes which the Costs Judge needs to resolve – for example, whether a payment on account has been omitted or whether there is a mathematical error in the account.
That is very different from investigating whether the solicitor received an undisclosed commission which does not form part of the bill being assessed.
The Court concluded that the Costs Judge has no power, as part of the section 70 assessment and certification process, to conduct that wider inquiry.
What about the solicitor’s fiduciary duty?
This is where the judgment becomes particularly interesting.
The Court was clear that solicitors are under an obligation to inform clients if they receive a commission or other financial reward from an ATE insurer.
Lady Justice Andrews was also critical of the solicitors’ refusal to confirm whether a commission had been received, describing that stance as “unattractive” and “unwise”.
If no commission was received, the Court observed, it would be straightforward to say so.
But that does not alter the jurisdictional position.
A solicitor’s fiduciary obligations cannot be used to expand the scope of a statutory solicitor/client costs assessment. If a client wishes to pursue an account or a claim arising from an alleged secret commission, that claim must be pursued through the appropriate route.
No shortcut – but potentially a gap in the rules
The appeal was allowed.
The Court summarised the current position starkly: a client who suspects that a former solicitor received a secret commission on an ATE policy cannot use a SOCA and a Part 18 request as a shortcut to obtaining that information.
The potential alternatives identified by the Court include proceedings for an account or a complaint to the Legal Ombudsman.
That creates an obvious practical difficulty. The value of any commission may be very small compared with the cost of separate proceedings. In Mr Turner’s case, the ATE premium was £245 and the Court estimated that any commission was unlikely to exceed around £25.
The Court expressly recognised the difficulty for a client who may need evidence of a commission in order to establish a claim when the relevant evidence is likely to be in the solicitor’s possession.
However, the Court concluded that it was not its role to create a procedural solution where the existing rules did not provide one, flagging the issue as something which those responsible for changes to the rules or legislation may wish to consider.
Practical implications
Turner is an important decision for those involved in solicitor/client assessments.
It confirms that the scope of a section 70 assessment remains focused on the bill and the costs properly falling within it. A cash account does not provide a gateway to investigate separate potential causes of action, and CPR Part 18 cannot be deployed to obtain information merely because it might reveal a claim which has not been brought.
At the same time, the judgment should not be read as providing comfort to solicitors who fail to disclose commissions. The Court was clear about the underlying fiduciary obligation and equally clear about its view of a solicitor refusing to answer a straightforward question about whether a commission had been received.
The distinction is therefore an important one: the substantive obligation to account remains, but a solicitor/client assessment is not the procedural mechanism through which a separate fiduciary claim can be investigated or pursued.
For practitioners, the decision provides welcome clarity on the limits of SOCA proceedings and Part 18 – but it may not be the final word on how low-value potential commission claims should be dealt with in a proportionate and cost-effective way.
