In Turner v Coupland Cavendish (trading as Gowing Law) [2026] EWCA Civ 1204, Turner’s representatives had issued an 18-question request about ATE commission to Turner’s former solicitors Coupland Cavendish. Coupland Cavendish, which had acted for Turner in a road traffic accident personal injury case which settled for £3,000, refused to answer.
Turner’s request was served under CPR Part 18 proceedings for assessment of the solicitors’ bill of costs. Costs Judge Rowley refused the request.
The Court of Appeal allowed the firm’s appeal and restored Costs Judge Rowley’s decision.
Lady Justice Andrews, delivering the main judgment, said: ‘The costs of resolving those questions far outweigh any benefit to the former client that might have resulted from a decision in his favour.
‘In this case, the ATE premium was £245... [Any] commission would be no more than around 10% of the premium, the amount potentially in dispute in this case is unlikely to be more than £25.’
It was common ground that solicitors are obliged to tell a client if they receive commission—Andrews LJ described the firm’s refusal as ‘unattractive’ and ‘unwise’ and acknowledged there appeared to be ‘no easy and cost-effective means of countering such recalcitrance.
‘The judge was right to identify the unfairness of requiring the client to produce evidence that a commission was paid in order to obtain the evidence they need to prove it, especially when all the evidence is likely to be in the hands of the solicitor. However, it is not for this court to propose a solution. I merely flag it up as something which others who are in a position to make changes to the rules or to the law may wish to consider.’
Nick McDonnell, director at Kain Knight, who acted for the successful firm, said: ‘Practitioners have been facing Part 18 requests built on the assertion that the cash account is in dispute, often with nothing behind the assertion at all.
‘The Court of Appeal has now drawn the line clearly.’
