The Court of Appeal’s decision in Turner v Coupland Cavendish Ltd [2026] EWCA Civ 1204 closes off a route that had been increasingly used to probe solicitors’ ATE arrangements through the costs assessment process itself. For costs lawyers and costs draftsmen handling solicitor and own client assessments, the case sets a clear boundary on what a SOCA can and cannot be used to investigate.

The Background

Mr Turner instructed Coupland Cavendish Limited, trading as Gowing Law, under a conditional fee agreement to pursue a road traffic accident claim, which settled for £3,000 in damages alongside a costs award of around £2,100. The solicitors’ profit costs came to £7,944 inclusive of VAT, more than twice the damages recovered, with a success fee of £750.

Mr Turner challenged the bill through a solicitor and own client assessment (SOCA) under section 70 of the Solicitors Act 1974. His new solicitors then served an 18-question Request for Further Information under CPR Part 18, asking whether Gowing Law had received any commission, discount, rebate or referral fee from the ATE insurer. Gowing Law refused to answer.

Three Courts, Three Positions

Costs Judge Rowley refused to order a response, finding no evidence that a commission had been paid and treating the request as an attempt to probe the ATE arrangement generally, rather than resolve a genuine dispute about the costs entries themselves.

On appeal, Sweeting J took the opposite view, holding that the threshold for a Part 18 request required only that the information relate to a matter in dispute in the proceedings, and that it was for the solicitor to satisfy the court as to the accuracy of the cash account, not for the client to disprove it.

The Court of Appeal, in a judgment given by Lady Justice Andrews, restored the Costs Judge’s original position and allowed Gowing Law’s appeal.

Why the Cash Account Isn’t a Gateway

The central reasoning turned on what a SOCA is actually for. Section 70 assessment is concerned with whether the solicitor’s costs have been reasonably incurred and are reasonable in amount – nothing more. The cash account, which records money received on the client’s behalf and sums paid out of it, serves a narrow function within that process: providing the arithmetic needed to certify the balance due once the bill itself has been assessed.

Because the ATE premium is paid on the client’s behalf rather than being a solicitor’s disbursement, it doesn’t appear in the bill of costs at all – only on the cash account. The Court of Appeal held that a dispute about whether an undisclosed commission exists is not a dispute about the accuracy of the cash account, and therefore isn’t a “matter in dispute in the proceedings” capable of supporting a Part 18 request. In the court’s words, a dispute over a secret commission “is not, and never could be, a dispute in the proceedings.”

The court also held that Edwards v Slater and Gordon UK Ltd [2022] EWHC 1091 (QB), which had previously been relied on for the opposite conclusion, was wrongly decided, aligning instead with the earlier authority of Tankard v John Fredericks Plastics Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 1375 on the separate, established duty to disclose commissions outside the assessment process.

A Gap the Court Acknowledged but Didn’t Fill

Lady Justice Andrews was candid about the practical consequences. She described the solicitors’ refusal to answer the commission question as unattractive, and potentially unwise if no commission had in fact been received, since silence tends to reinforce suspicion rather than dispel it. But she was equally clear that a client’s remedy lies elsewhere – in fresh proceedings for an account, or a complaint to the Legal Ombudsman – while acknowledging that both routes are often disproportionately expensive given the modest sums typically involved in ATE commissions.

What This Means in Practice

For costs practitioners advising on SOCA proceedings, Turner draws a firm line around what Part 18 can achieve within an assessment. A dispute genuinely about figures appearing on the cash account remains fair game; a request aimed at investigating whether an undisclosed fiduciary breach might exist elsewhere is not, however the request is framed. Firms conducting a solicitor and own client assessment should be alert to requests that use the cash account as a route into broader disclosure, and should be prepared to draw the same distinction the Court of Appeal has now endorsed.

For solicitors arranging ATE cover, the case is also a reminder that the disclosure duty confirmed in Tankard hasn’t gone anywhere – Turner closes off one procedural route to enforcing it, but doesn’t touch the underlying obligation.

Speak to Our Team of Costs Lawyers

Our team of costs lawyers and costs draftsmen advises on solicitor and own client assessments under section 70 of the Solicitors Act 1974, including the scope of Part 18 requests and disputes over cash accounts and disbursements.

If your firm needs advice on a SOCA or a Part 18 request in an active matter, contact Greener Costs today. Call us on 01204 263047 or email info@greenercosts.co.uk.