Turner v Coupland Cavendish – High Court requires law firm to provide information about commissions on ATE premiums, and the Gibraltar company to which it had diverted its success fee

In Turner v Coupland Cavendish Ltd [2025] EWHC 1605 (KB) (26 June 2025), Mr. Justice Sweeting allowed an appeal brought by JG Solicitors on behalf of Mr. Turner, overturning the Costs Judge's decision that Mr. Turner's former solicitors were not required to provide information.

Mr.Turner had instructed Coupland Cavendish in relation to a personal injury claim arising from a road traffic accident. The claim concluded successfully and, as with many such cases, the solicitors deducted a success fee along with a premium for a policy of insurance known as "ATE insurance" from Mr.Turner's compensation. Unusually the success fee of £750 was not retained by the solicitors but sent on to a separate Gibraltar based company.

Mr.Turner disputed the solicitors' bill generally and, within the resulting proceedings (an application for assessment under the Solicitors Act 1974) made requests for information, relying on part 18 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Part 18 is designed to enable one party to get additional information from his or her opponent about matters that are in dispute in the proceedings. Mr.Turner wanted to know whether the solicitors had received any commission or profit on the ATE insurance that ought to have been disclosed to him. In respect of the Gibraltar company he simply wanted more detail so that he could undertake a company search.

First Hearing

At the hearing before the Costs Judge, Mr. Carlisle of CMLF appeared as advocate for Mr. Turner. Costs Judge Rowley (now Senior Costs Judge) found that the requests were not justified because there was no evidence from Mr. Turner to suggest that a commission had been paid.

On the ATE premium -

• "The Costs Judge considered that without a "positive case" or any supporting evidence from the Claimant, such requests amounted to a fishing expedition"

On the Gibraltar company -

• "The Costs Judge concluded that it was not appropriate to compel the provision of the identifying company number for the Gibraltar-based company, AJG Limited, to which a payment had been made from the Claimant's recovered compensation. He relied on a "general principle" that a defendant is not normally obliged to provide information "where such information can be obtained elsewhere", although he considered that there were cost implications because of the Defendant's non-assistance."

The Appeal

On the appeal, which was heard on 23^rd October 2024, JG Solicitors instructed Priya Gopal of Gatehouse Chambers to represent Mr.Turner.

Mr. Justice Sweeting handed down judgment on 26^th June 2025, allowing the appeal in full and finding that in respect of the queries as to commissions on ATE –

• "In relation to requests directed at commission I conclude that the only threshold condition is that the information must relate to a matter in dispute in the proceedings. There is no requirement for a witness statement or a "positive case" to be established by the party seeking information. There is no requirement on a party to "prove" something that is not within their knowledge, especially when it lies within the exclusive knowledge of the other party. Part 18 requests are precisely designed for circumstances, amongst others, where clarification is needed, and the facts are not within the knowledge of the requesting party. It is not correct to equate the threshold for ordering further information under CPR Part 18 with the more stringent requirements for specific disclosure or pre-action disclosure. It is, and always has been, incumbent upon the solicitor to satisfy the Court as to the accuracy of the cash account, not for the client to disprove it"

He noted that -

• "The fact that undisclosed commissions are acknowledged to be a feature of some litigation arrangements which involve ATE insurance…provides ample grounds for a query to be raised"

And, in respect of the Gibraltar company -

• "Since, the Respondent included a debit for client money sent to this offshore entity within its cash account the Appellant, in my view, had a legitimate interest in understanding the nature and basis of the payment."

He made the important point that -

• "Solicitors are officers of the Court and generally act as fiduciaries and agents for their clients. This relationship imposes a clear obligation to provide their principal with full information regarding their dealings as an agent. Client accounts are held on trust, further underscoring the need for transparent and complete disclosure of all financial benefits received. Case law establishes that for beneficiaries seeking documents held by trustees, no threshold of suspicion is required; the question is simply whether it is appropriate for the Court to intervene. This principle supports the need for such information where a solicitor acts as a fiduciary"