Turner v Coupland Cavendish (2) - High Court refuses solicitors' request to delay answering questions about undisclosed commissions

Why is it so hard to say "no"?

On 26th June the High Court decided that Coupland Cavendish Limited should answer our client's questions about whether they had received any commission or profit on the ATE insurance that they had recommended for him. 

The High Court pointed out that answering the questions was unlikely to be difficult -

"The information sought by the Claimant can be easily provided. Ordering the provision of this information would not result in disproportionate expenditure or effort. Indeed, if no commission was received, the response will be simple."

Mr. Justice Sweeting, judgment dated 26th June 2025, paragraph 68

 You can read our full report on the 26th June judgment here -

Yesterday, Mr. Justice Sweeting handed down a further judgment, dealing mainly with the solicitors' request to delay answering the questions until such time as the Court of Appeal has considered their application for permission for a second appeal, and any subsequent appeal if permission were granted. They argued that provision of the information that they had been ordered to provide would cause them "irremediable harm" because information "once provided cannot be erased".

In a short and robust decision, the Judge refused the solicitors' request.

"The balance of justice does not favour a stay in these circumstances. The immediate provision of this information could, in fact, facilitate the efficient resolution of the underlying dispute, particularly given the straightforward nature of the information sought, regardless of any further appellate process"

Mr. Justice Sweeting, judgment dated 7th August 2025, paragraph 8.

 You can read the full judgment below.