Stephen Turner v Coupland Cavendish Limited

In a solicitor-and-own-client assessment, the statutory jurisdiction concerns the amount properly chargeable under the solicitor’s bill and the resulting balance due in respect of that bill. The cash account assists the court’s final arithmetical certification. It does not authorise a general account between solicitor and client.

A request under CPR Part 18 must concern a genuine matter in dispute in the assessment. It cannot be used to obtain disclosure about an alleged secret commission on an after-the-event insurance premium, because that issue is not an assessment issue and cannot be introduced through the cash account. The client’s remedy is to seek an account in separate proceedings or to complain to the Legal Ombudsman.

The respondent, a former personal-injury client, obtained a solicitor-and-own-client assessment under section 70 of the Solicitors Act 1974. He sought answers under CPR Part 18 concerning whether his former solicitors had received a commission or other benefit when arranging after-the-event insurance.

The Costs Judge refused the request. On first appeal, Sweeting J allowed it and directed answers to be given: [2025] EWHC 1605 (KB). The solicitors brought a second appeal. The central issue was whether a disputed or allegedly incomplete cash account made the requested information a matter in dispute in the statutory assessment proceedings.

1. Appeal allowed. The Court had no power in the solicitor-and-own-client assessment to order answers to the Part 18 request about alleged commissions on the after-the-event insurance policy.

2. The assessment under section 70 of the Solicitors Act 1974 is confined to determining the reasonable amount of the solicitor’s bill and the costs of the assessment. As Menzies v Oakwood Solicitors Ltd [2024] UKSC 14 confirms, the statutory protection is against overcharging for legal services. The cash account is separate from the bill. It enables the costs judge to calculate and certify the balance due in respect of the assessed bill, including payments on account and money which may properly be set off.

3. The duty to determine the result of the cash account under PD 46 para 6.19 does not require a merits-based inquiry into every debit, credit or alleged omission. The costs judge may address mathematical mistakes, payments on account of costs, and sums held for the client which may lawfully be appropriated to the bill. A claimed secret commission is foreign to that task.

4. CPR Part 18 permits clarification or further information only about a matter genuinely in dispute in the proceedings. It cannot be used as a substitute for disclosure or to investigate a possible separate claim. A bare assertion that the cash account may be incomplete does not create a dispute. Nor can a client pursue disgorgement of a secret profit within a section 70 assessment.

5. The Court held that the contrary approach in the Raubenheimer appeal was wrongly decided and per incuriam. The Costs Judge was also entitled to refuse relief because no formal Part 18 application had been made and the questions sought had not been placed before him.

6. A solicitor who owes fiduciary duties ought to answer a client’s inquiry about a commission. But the absence of a simple and economical procedural route to compel an answer cannot enlarge the statutory assessment jurisdiction. The appropriate remedies remain separate proceedings for an account or a complaint to the Legal Ombudsman.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Allowed the solicitors’ second appeal and restored the refusal to require answers to the Part 18 request: [2026] EWCA Civ 1204 .
• High Court, King’s Bench Division: Sweeting J allowed the former client’s appeal and directed that the request be answered: [2025] EWHC 1605 (KB) .
• Senior Courts Costs Office: Costs Judge Rowley refused to order answers to the request in the solicitor-and-own-client assessment: [2023] EWHC 2721 (SCCO) .