Key Facts
- •Six detailed assessment cases under the Solicitors Act 1974 were heard consecutively.
- •The hearings were adjourned due to insufficient time estimates and complex disputes.
- •Three preliminary applications were heard in the case of Turner, impacting other cases.
- •Mr. Turner sought assessment of a bill from Coupland Cavendish Ltd.
- •Disputes arose regarding disclosure, Part 18 requests, and information about a Gibraltar company (AJG Limited).
Legal Principles
Disclosure of documents mentioned in statements of case, witness statements, etc.
CPR 31.14
Specific disclosure requires a formal application with evidence (PD 31A, paragraph 5.1).
Practice Direction 31A, paragraph 5.1
Court's case management powers (CPR Part 3) can supplement Part 31 in Solicitors Act assessments (Edwards v Slater and Gordon).
Edwards v Slater and Gordon
Proportionate approach to disclosure; court considers the ease of retrieval and relevance (PD 31A, paragraph 5.4).
Practice Direction 31A, paragraph 5.4
He who asserts must prove; claimants must provide evidence to support their claims.
Brown v JMW Solicitors
A principal is entitled to access to their agent's records unless expressly excluded (Yasuda Fire and Marine Insurance Co v Orion Marine Insurance Underwriting Agency Ltd).
Yasuda Fire and Marine Insurance Co v Orion Marine Insurance Underwriting Agency Ltd
ATE premiums are not part of the solicitor's bill but are in the client's cash account; disputes about the cash account can lead to questions about ATE insurance and commissions (Herbert v HH Law).
Herbert v HH Law
Solicitors must notify clients of any interest (including commission) in recommending ATE insurance (Tankard v John Fredericks Plastics).
Tankard v John Fredericks Plastics
CPR Part 1: overriding objective of dealing with the case justly and at proportionate cost.
CPR Part 1
Outcomes
Refusal of the claimant's application for disclosure of call recordings.
Procedural irregularity (lack of formal application and evidence); claimant failed to demonstrate relevance to their case.
Refusal of the claimant's application for Part 18 requests.
Lack of evidence to support the allegations of undisclosed commissions; procedural irregularity (no Part 18 requests before the court).
Refusal of the claimant's application for the Gibraltar company number.
Information readily obtainable elsewhere; disproportionate cost and effort.