Part 18 Requests in Costs Disputes | When Must Solicitors Answer Questions About Commissions?

TURNER v COUPLAND CAVENDISH LIMITED [2025] EWHC 1605 (KB)

In Turner v Coupland Cavendish Limited [2025] EWHC 1605 (KB), the court addressed two key costs issues arising from solicitor own client assessment (SOCA) proceedings under section 70 of the Solicitors Act 1974. The appellant challenged Costs Judge Rowley’s refusal to order responses to Part 18 requests concerning potential undisclosed commissions related to ATE insurance arrangements and disclosure of details about AJG Limited, a Gibraltar company that received £750 from client compensation. Applying Edwards v Slater and Gordon UK Ltd [2022] EWHC 1091 (QB), the court held that the Costs Judge erred in requiring evidence of wrongdoing before ordering Part 18 responses. The burden remains on solicitors to satisfy the court as to cash account accuracy; client queries place accounts in dispute until answered. The court rejected the “fishing expedition” argument, finding the only threshold for Part 18 requests is relevance to matters in dispute. The appeal was allowed with orders for full Part 18 responses and disclosure of the company number, confirming that disputed cash accounts require solicitors to provide information even without evidence of impropriety.

“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. Queries raised by the client or the Court itself place the account in dispute. Even if a threshold of "reasonable suspicion" were required, that threshold has been met in this case.”

Citations

Herbert v HH Law Ltd [2019] 1 WLR 4253 ATE insurance premiums are not solicitor’s disbursements subject to assessment under section 70 of the Solicitors Act 1974 but are properly treated as entries in the solicitor’s cash account. Edwards v Slater and Gordon UK Ltd [2022] EWHC 1091 (QB) A Costs Judge has jurisdiction in solicitor-client assessments to order disclosure and replies to Part 18 requests where the client disputes the cash account, including where the dispute concerns potential undisclosed commissions. Brown v JMW Solicitors LLP [2022] EWHC 2848 (SCCO) A Costs Judge may decline to order replies to Part 18 requests relating to alleged commissions absent supporting evidence, on the basis that speculative requests amount to a fishing expedition and do not disclose a specific dispute. Raubenheimer v Slater and Gordon UK Ltd [2022] EWHC 1091 (QB) Where a solicitor’s cash account is disputed, a Costs Judge has case management powers to order replies to Part 18 requests to enable a fair and efficient assessment of the solicitor-client costs. Yasuda Fire and Marine Insurance Co of Europe Ltd v Orion Marine Insurance Underwriting Agency Ltd [1995] QB 174 Where a fiduciary relationship exists, a principal is entitled to disclosure of records from their agent relating to transactions undertaken on the principal’s behalf, including after termination of the relationship. Tankard v John Fredericks Plastics Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 1375 A solicitor must disclose a financial interest in recommending an ATE insurance product where a reasonably informed client would consider that interest significant in the circumstances. Al Saud v Gibbs [2022] 1 WLR 3083 Part 18 requests will not normally be permitted when a party has provided a concise and compliant statement of case, unless additional detail is required to clarify the dispute. Harcourt v FEF Griffin [2007] EWHC 1500 (QB) Part 18 requests are permissible to clarify whether a dispute exists and may be ordered where relevant information is not otherwise available. Lewis v Tamplin [2018] EWHC 7777 Beneficiaries seeking documents from trustees need not demonstrate suspicion or a threshold case; the Court must determine whether intervention is appropriate based on the circumstances. Schmidt v Rosewood Trust Ltd [2003] UKPC 26 The Court has inherent jurisdiction to order trustees to disclose documents to beneficiaries without requiring any threshold of suspicion or misconduct. Belsner v CAM Legal Services Ltd [2022] EWCA Civ 1387 Solicitors owe fiduciary duties to clients from the outset of a retainer, including in relation to costs and financial arrangements such as ATE insurance. Bendriss v Nicholson Jones Sutton Solicitors Ltd [2024] EWHC 1100 (SCCO) Replies to Part 18 requests may reveal payments to intermediaries with shared ownership, which may give rise to a requirement to account for undisclosed commissions in the solicitor’s cash account. Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance plc v T&N Limited and Others [2002] EWCA Civ 1964 Appellate courts will interfere with case management decisions only where they are plainly wrong, recognising the broad discretion afforded to case management judges. Ladd v Marshall [1954] 1 WLR 1489 New evidence should only be admitted on appeal where it is credible, would probably have an important influence on the result, and could not with reasonable diligence have been obtained for the original trial.

Track allocation housing disrepair CPR 46.13 settlement sum costs restriction SCCO

MRO fee markup cap 25% detailed assessment personal injury Senior Courts Costs Office

Security for costs refused CPR 25.27 very high probability success excessive estimate King's Bench

IPEC scale costs transfer Patents Court PD 30 para 9.2 costs caps Court of Appeal

Costs budget variation CPR 3.15A promptness significant development unfair prejudice Chancery Division

Costs budgeting inter partes proportionality high hourly rates AI disclosure Patents Court CPR 3E

Beneficiary personal liability section 71(3) Solicitors Act 1974 indemnity costs VAT self-supply SCCO

Summary assessment indemnity costs unless order payment on account disclosure default Chancery Division

Provisional assessment set aside CPR 3.1(7) points of dispute filing duty PD 47 para 14.3 SCCO

Fixed recoverable costs police claims CPR 26.9(10)(e) intentional tort exemption

Key Points

In solicitor-own-client assessments under section 70 of the Solicitors Act 1974, the court is required to determine the result of the cash account before certifying the final amount payable between solicitor and client. Scrutiny of the cash account is therefore a mandatory part of the assessment process.
A solicitor bears the obligation to satisfy the court of the accuracy of the cash account; it is not for the client to prove omissions or inaccuracies, and disputes may arise where there are concerns about undisclosed commissions or unexplained financial transactions.
Requests for further information under Part 18 CPR in solicitor-own-client assessments are permissible where they relate to a matter in dispute, including potential undisclosed commissions or other disputes relating to the cash account. There is no requirement to establish an arguable case or provide supporting evidence before such requests may be ordered.
Payments made by a solicitor as agent for the client, such as ATE insurance premiums, are properly recorded in a cash account and not as part of the bill of costs; however, any undisclosed commission or financial benefit relating to such payments may be subject to scrutiny as a matter concerning the trust and fiduciary relationship underpinning the client-solicitor retainer.
Where a solicitor’s cash account includes a payment to a third party, the client is entitled to receive sufficient information to understand and investigate the basis of that payment; the solicitor’s duty of transparency includes providing basic identifying information relevant to the transaction, especially when the payment appears unusual or unexplained.

“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. If a commission was received, it ought, arguably, to have been disclosed previously.”

Key Findings In The Case

The judge found that the cash account was properly in dispute due to the Appellant’s expressed concerns about undisclosed commissions and unexplained payments; accordingly, it required scrutiny as part of the court’s duty to certify what is due under section 70(7) of the Solicitors Act 1974 and paragraph 6.19 of CPR PD 46 [6, 13, 67].
The judge determined that Part 18 CPR requests seeking information about possible undisclosed commissions must be answered where relevant to issues in dispute, and that no prior evidential threshold or “positive case” by the client was required for such requests within a solicitor-own-client assessment [34, 60–61, 67].
It was found that the Respondent had received and failed to respond substantively to a Part 18 request served by the Appellant on 18 July 2022, which directly concerned client money issues, including whether any commissions or financial benefits had been retained without disclosure or accounting to the client [17, 37–38, 68].
The judge found that a payment recorded in the solicitor’s cash account to a Gibraltar-based entity (AJG Ltd) was not adequately explained by the Respondent, and that the Appellant had a legitimate right to request identifying company information to investigate the propriety of the transaction, particularly as it involved the client’s recovered compensation [15, 49–52, 70–71].
The judge held that the Costs Judge erred in relying on the absence of evidence or “positive case” to refuse both the Part 18 request and the application for information regarding the Gibraltar company, as this reversed the proper burden on the solicitor to account fully and transparently for client money in a fiduciary context [33, 35–36, 72].

“Transferring the onus onto the client to independently obtain fundamental details regarding a payment initiated by the solicitor is, in my view, inconsistent with the solicitor’s duty to explain an otherwise inexplicable transaction appearing in the cash account relating to the client’s money.”

Part 18 Requests in Costs Disputes | When Must Solicitors Answer Questions About Commissions?

Introduction

In solicitor own client assessments (SOCA), the accuracy of the cash account is often a critical issue. A recent High Court decision has clarified when solicitors must respond to Part 18 requests seeking information about potential undisclosed commissions, particularly regarding After the Event (ATE) insurance arrangements. The case of Turner v Coupland Cavendish Limited [2025] EWHC 1605 (KB) demonstrates that clients need not produce evidence of wrongdoing before being entitled to answers about possible commission payments.

Background

Mr Turner instructed Coupland Cavendish Limited to handle his personal injury claim. Following a successful settlement, the solicitors delivered their bill in March 2022, which Mr Turner challenged through SOCA proceedings. Two specific concerns emerged from the cash account: a £245 ATE insurance premium and a £750 payment to AJG Limited, a Gibraltar-based company.

In his Points of Dispute, Mr Turner raised concerns about potential undisclosed commissions and requested answers to Part 18 questions he had served in July 2022. The solicitors dismissed these as a “fishing expedition” and refused to respond. At the hearing before Costs Judge Rowley, Mr Turner made oral applications for orders requiring responses to the Part 18 requests and disclosure of AJG Limited’s company number. Both applications were refused.

The Costs Issues

The Cash Account Dispute

Following the Court of Appeal’s decision in Herbert v HH Law Ltd [2019] 1 WLR 4253, ATE premiums are treated as items in the cash account rather than solicitors’ disbursements subject to assessment. This created a particular challenge: while clients cannot directly challenge ATE premium amounts in section 70 assessments, they may still dispute the accuracy of the cash account itself, particularly if undisclosed commissions were received.

The fundamental question was whether a client must provide evidence of wrongdoing before being entitled to information about potential commissions. This engaged the established principle that solicitors must satisfy the court as to the accuracy of their cash accounts.

The Threshold for Part 18 Requests

Costs Judge Rowley had applied what he considered to be the approach from his earlier decision in Brown v JMW Solicitors LLP [2022] EWHC 2848 (SCCO), requiring evidence equivalent to an arguable case for pre-action disclosure. He distinguished Edwards v Slater and Gordon UK Ltd [2022] EWHC 1091 (QB), where Part 18 requests had been ordered, on the basis that in Edwards there was actual evidence of payments obtained from the ATE insurer’s administrators.

The Parties’ Arguments

Mr Turner argued that the mere fact of the cash account being disputed should trigger an obligation to provide information. He relied on agency principles from Yasuda Fire and Marine Insurance Co of Europe Ltd v Orion Marine Insurance Underwriting Agency Ltd [1995] QB 174, contending that as principal he was entitled to information from his solicitor as agent. He emphasised that the Part 18 questions sought simple yes/no responses under a statement of truth and could potentially resolve his concerns.

The solicitors maintained that requiring answers without evidence would constitute a “fishing expedition” and amount to “tarring all solicitors with the same secret commission brush”. They argued that their assertion that the cash account was complete should suffice in the absence of any positive case to the contrary. They also contended that the decision was a case management matter subject to the high threshold for appellate interference.

The Court’s Decision

Mr Justice Sweeting, sitting with Costs Judge Simon Brown as assessor, allowed the appeal on both grounds. The court made several significant findings about the threshold for Part 18 requests in costs disputes.

No Evidence Required

The court held that “the only threshold condition is that the information must relate to a matter in dispute in the proceedings.” There was no requirement for a witness statement or “positive case” to be established, particularly where facts lay within the exclusive knowledge of the other party. The judge explicitly rejected the analogy with pre-action disclosure, stating:

“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.”

Cash Accounts Are Not Statements of Case

The court found that Points of Dispute, Replies and Cash Accounts are not Statements of Case within CPR 22.1 due to the absence of statements of truth. Therefore, they could not be regarded as explicit statements that no commission had been received. The burden remained on the solicitor to satisfy the court as to the accuracy of the cash account.

The Edwards Case Was Not Exceptional

The court rejected the suggestion that Edwards was limited to its unusual facts. What was unusual in Edwards was not the arrangement itself but that information emerged from an unusual source (the insurer’s administrators). This actually supported the need for disclosure in other cases where clients would typically be unaware of commission arrangements.

Gibraltar Company Information

Regarding the Gibraltar company, the court held that where a debit for client money sent to an offshore entity appeared in the cash account, the client had a legitimate interest in understanding the nature and basis of the payment. It was inconsistent with a solicitor’s duties to transfer the onus onto the client to obtain fundamental details about a payment initiated by the solicitor from client funds.

Analysis | Why This Decision Matters

This judgment provides important clarification for costs practitioners on several fronts. First, it confirms that clients need not produce evidence before being entitled to ask questions about their solicitors’ financial arrangements. This recognises the reality that information about commissions typically lies exclusively within the solicitor’s knowledge.

Second, the decision reinforces that the burden remains on solicitors to satisfy the court as to the accuracy of their cash accounts. Queries raised by clients or the court place the account in dispute until answered satisfactorily. This is particularly significant given the fiduciary nature of the solicitor-client relationship.

Third, the judgment suggests that the existence of commission arrangements between solicitors and ATE insurers is sufficiently well-known to justify inquiries, even without specific evidence in individual cases. As the judge noted, if commission arrangements are acknowledged to be “a feature of some litigation arrangements”, this provides grounds for queries to be raised.

Practical Implications

This decision has significant implications for how cash account disputes are handled in SOCA proceedings. Solicitors can no longer simply assert that their cash accounts are complete and refuse to answer questions about potential commissions. The low threshold for Part 18 requests means that clients who raise legitimate queries about cash account items are likely to be entitled to answers.

For those drafting Part 18 requests, the judgment confirms that simple, direct questions seeking yes/no answers about commission receipts are appropriate and not unduly onerous. The court noted that “if no commission was received, the response will be simple.”

The decision also highlights the importance of transparency in solicitor-client financial dealings. Where payments are made to third parties from client funds, particularly offshore entities, solicitors should expect to provide full information about the nature and purpose of such payments.

Conclusion

Turner v Coupland Cavendish Limited represents a victory for transparency in solicitor-client financial relationships. By setting a low threshold for Part 18 requests about potential commissions, the High Court has ensured that clients can obtain information necessary to verify the accuracy of cash accounts without first having to prove wrongdoing.

The decision reinforces that in costs disputes, as in other areas of legal practice, the fiduciary obligations of solicitors require openness about financial arrangements that may affect their clients. For costs practitioners, this means being prepared to answer straightforward questions about commission arrangements when asked, rather than requiring clients to embark on fishing expeditions for evidence that lies within the solicitor’s exclusive control.

Specialist costs services across the UK

TMC Legal provides expert costs drafting, negotiaton and costs budgeting services together with representation in detailed assessment hearings. Our experienced costs lawyers and law costs draftsmen act nationwide. Contact us today.