Stephen Turner v Coupland Cavendish Limited

In a Solicitors Act assessment, a client is not entitled to wide-ranging disclosure merely because documents may exist or may assist in formulating a case. Specific disclosure requires a procedurally proper application, supported by evidence identifying the order sought and its grounds. The applicant must advance a positive, arguable case before seeking call recordings or Part 18 answers concerning alleged undisclosed commissions. Disclosure is also subject to proportionality. A solicitor’s agency in obtaining after-the-event insurance does not, without more, give the client access to the solicitor’s wider financial records. The client is entitled to the contractual insurance documents and to notification of any relevant interest, but speculative enquiries do not justify broad inspection.

The claimant brought Part 8 proceedings under Solicitors Act 1974 for assessment of a bill delivered by the defendant solicitors. Three preliminary applications arose before the detailed assessment: disclosure of call recordings; answers to Part 18 questions concerning ATE insurance and alleged undisclosed commissions; and provision of the company number of a Gibraltar-based third-party company connected with a payment.

The court considered the interaction between the disclosure provisions in the Civil Procedure Rules 1998, the court’s case-management powers, the client’s rights in relation to an agent’s records, and the need for evidence supporting allegations of commissions or other financial impropriety.

1. The three applications were refused or declined. The court found in favour of the defendant on all three preliminary issues.
2. Call recordings were not documents mentioned in a statement of case, witness statement, witness summary or affidavit for the purposes of CPR 31.14. The disclosure ordered in a Solicitors Act assessment was disclosure of the solicitors’ file. Any request for further, specific disclosure required the procedural safeguards identified in paragraph 5.1 of Practice Direction 31A, including an application specifying the order sought and evidence supporting the grounds. The claimant had provided neither.
3. The court rejected the attempt to use general case-management powers under CPR Part 3 to cure the procedural failure. Paragraph 5.4 of Practice Direction 31A did not assist because the defendant had searched and disclosed its solicitors’ file, rather than failed to make a sufficient search.
4. In any event, the request for call recordings was speculative and disproportionate. The claimant had not identified a positive case about the sign-up process or explained how the recordings would advance it. Searching potentially large IT records and reviewing them would impose disproportionate costs. Call recordings, if kept for defensive or regulatory purposes, were analogous to solicitors’ working notes and did not become the client’s property merely because the solicitors’ file was being disclosed.
5. The Part 18 application also failed procedurally because the requests were not before the court and there was no supporting evidence. A disputed cash account did not entitle a claimant to interrogate alleged commissions without an evidential basis. The claimant had to establish an arguable case before seeking such information. The possibility of relief under Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 did not remove that threshold.
6. Yasuda Fire and Marine Insurance Co of Europe Ltd v Orion Marine Insurance Underwriting Agency Ltd did not confer a right to inspect all the solicitor’s records. Its agency principle was materially different from the ordinary arrangement by which a solicitor obtains a block ATE policy. The client was entitled to the certificate and policy documents. Any solicitor’s interest in recommending insurance had to be disclosed, but the claimant had produced no evidence justifying wider Part 18 requests.
7. The request for a Gibraltar company number was refused because the information concerned a third party and was available from Companies House. The defendant’s refusal had costs consequences in principle, but no costs order was made in its favour. Proportionality under CPR Part 1 remained relevant.