The Court of Appeal has ruled that a costs judge does not have jurisdiction under the Solicitors Act 1974 to compel a law firm to answer questions about whether it received a commission from an after-the-event insurance provider.
The decision was handed down on 21 September 2026 in Turner v Coupland Cavendish Ltd, with the Law Gazette reporting the judgment on 22 September. The case concerned the scope of solicitor-client costs assessments and the use of requests for further information to investigate potential financial arrangements between solicitors and ATE insurers.
Stephen Turner had instructed Coupland Cavendish, which trades as Gowing Law, to act for him in a personal injury claim under a conditional fee agreement. After the claim was settled and the firm delivered its statutory bill, Turner’s new legal representatives sought information about whether the firm had received any direct or indirect commission connected with the ATE insurance policy.
The request was made under Part 18 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Turner sought answers concerning the firm’s cash account and the possibility that an undisclosed payment had been made to the solicitors in connection with the insurance arrangement.
Costs Judge Rowley had originally refused to require Coupland Cavendish to answer the questions. Mr Justice Sweeting later overturned that decision in the High Court and held that the costs assessment proceedings could accommodate the information request.
Coupland Cavendish appealed to the Court of Appeal.
Lord Justice Lewison, Lord Justice Phillips and Lady Justice Andrews, sitting with Costs Judge Whalan as an assessor, unanimously allowed the firm’s appeal. The court concluded that the Part 18 request was not concerned with a matter properly in dispute within the costs proceedings and that the costs judge therefore had no power to order the firm to respond.
The court also held that a costs judge does not have authority to investigate the accuracy or lawfulness of entries in a solicitor’s cash account where those entries are neither payments made towards the solicitor’s bill nor money received on behalf of the client that could properly be used to pay that bill.
The judgment further found that a costs judge is not required to resolve every existing or potential dispute concerning a cash account before determining the amount due under the solicitor’s bill and the costs of the assessment.
The court also noted a procedural difficulty with the information request. Even if the request had been legitimate, the costs judge was entitled to refuse it because no formal application for an order requiring a response had been made and the questions had not properly been put before the judge.
The case followed an earlier High Court ruling that had permitted the information request. That decision had relied in part on the principle that a client seeking information about a possible undisclosed commission might not be able to establish its existence without first obtaining information held by the solicitor.
The Court of Appeal rejected the use of the costs assessment process for that purpose. The judgment also considered the earlier decision in Raubenheimer v Slater and Gordon UK Ltd, which had been relied upon in support of obtaining information about commissions in solicitor-client costs proceedings. The Court of Appeal concluded that the earlier authority should not be followed.
Lady Justice Andrews nevertheless indicated that it would be unwise for solicitors simply to refuse to answer clients who ask whether commissions have been received from ATE providers. She said that if there were a genuine widespread problem involving solicitors failing to comply with professional obligations concerning such commissions, the approach taken in this litigation was not the appropriate way to address it.
The ruling therefore concerns the jurisdiction of costs judges rather than establishing that solicitors are free from any separate professional or fiduciary obligations concerning commissions. The Court of Appeal’s decision instead determines that a solicitor-client costs assessment under the Solicitors Act is not a general mechanism for investigating such matters.
The judgment provides new guidance on the limits of the costs assessment jurisdiction and the circumstances in which Part 18 requests can be used in those proceedings. It also overturns the High Court approach that had allowed the information request in this case.
