Turner v Coupland Cavendish: When Costs Disputes and Fiduciary Duties Collide
Written by Nick McDonnell, Director and Costs Lawyer, Kain Knight Manchester.
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Turner v Coupland Cavendish Ltd [2026] EWCA Civ 1204 has prompted renewed discussion about how former clients should investigate possible commissions or other financial benefits received by solicitors in connection with ATE insurance.
The decision draws an important distinction.
A solicitor may owe fiduciary duties requiring disclosure of a commission. A client may be entitled to ask whether a commission was received. But that does not mean that a Solicitors Act 1974 assessment is the correct forum for investigating whether a separate claim exists.
The issue in Turner was therefore not whether solicitors may receive undisclosed commissions. They may not. Nor was it whether clients can ask about them. They can.
The issue was procedural: whether section 70 proceedings, supported by Part 18 questions, could be used to investigate a possible commission claim where there was no established dispute about the solicitor’s cash account.
The Court of Appeal held that they could not.
The disclosure obligation remains
There was no dispute about the underlying fiduciary principle. As Andrews LJ recorded, a solicitor who receives a commission or other financial benefit from an ATE insurer is obliged to inform the client.
The judgment also makes clear that, if a former client asks whether a commission has been received, the solicitor ought to answer. A refusal may be unwise, particularly because it can increase suspicion and lead to further proceedings.
Nothing in Turner weakens those obligations.
The decision instead concerns the limits of the procedural route chosen by the client. A solicitor and client assessment under section 70 is concerned with the assessment of the solicitor’s bill. It is not a general mechanism for investigating every possible dispute between solicitor and client.
By analogy; a search warrant may uncover evidence of wrongdoing, but you cannot obtain one simply because you want to find out whether wrongdoing has occurred. There must first be a proper basis for invoking the procedure. The possibility that an investigation might reveal something does not itself provide that basis.
The limits of Part 18
Part 18 remains available in solicitor and client assessments. It may be used where further information is needed to resolve an issue properly arising within the assessment.
For example, a client may need to ask why particular work took as long as it did, why it was carried out by a partner rather than a more junior fee earner, or how a particular item on the bill was calculated.
Those questions assist the Costs Judge in deciding whether the bill is reasonable and proportionate.
A question about whether the solicitor received a commission from a third party is different. Its purpose may be to establish whether the client has a separate claim for breach of fiduciary duty, restitution or an account. That is not the same as resolving an existing dispute about the solicitor’s bill.
The Court of Appeal rejected the attempt to create such a dispute indirectly. A client cannot assert that the cash account is in dispute, use that assertion to obtain Part 18 questions, and then use the answers to discover whether there is any commission claim in the first place.
That would turn the assessment into an investigative exercise rather than a costs assessment.
The “more expensive proceedings” objection
One response to Turner is that it may force clients into more costly proceedings for an “account.” But what is an account in this context?
The Supreme Court explains it well in Rukhadze & Ors v Recovery Partners GP Ltd & Anor [2025] UKSC 10 (19 March 2025). At paragraph 211 it said an “account” is:
The concern that this more expensive route might be the only available route to clients (it is not) is understandable, but it does not answer the jurisdictional question.
A procedure does not acquire jurisdiction merely because it would be cheaper or more convenient than the proper alternative. The first question must be whether the court has power to determine the issue at all.
Proceedings for an account may be one available route, but they are certainly not the only one. Depending on the value and circumstances, a claim may (and most often will) be suitable for the small claims track. A complaint to the Legal Ombudsman may also be appropriate and other regulatory or complaints mechanisms are available in particular cases.
The choice is therefore not necessarily between using Part 18 within a section 70 assessment and commencing substantial High Court litigation.
That is especially important where the potential financial benefit is modest. In Turner, the ATE premium was £245 and the Court estimated that any commission was unlikely to exceed approximately £25. The costs of resolving the legal issues in the appeal vastly exceeded the potential benefit to the client.
That proportionality point is central to the practical significance of the judgment.
A necessary boundary
The wider importance of Turner lies in the boundary it establishes.
Section 70 provides an important statutory mechanism for clients challenging their solicitors’ costs. Part 18 can support that process where information is genuinely required to determine issues arising within the assessment.
It cannot be used as a form of pre-action disclosure for a possible claim unrelated to the assessment of the bill.
If there is a broader policy concern about undisclosed commissions, the Court of Appeal indicated that the Rules Committee or Parliament may wish to address it. That would be the appropriate route for any general procedural reform.
For now, the position is clear. A client may ask whether a solicitor received a commission, and a solicitor ought to answer. But the right to ask does not determine the right forum. A Solicitors Act assessment cannot be used to investigate a possible separate claim simply because it offers a convenient procedural shortcut.
