Background
Nebahat Evyap İşbilen alleges that her former adviser, Selman Turk, dealt dishonestly and in breach of trust with approximately US$90 million derived from her family’s businesses. One disputed transaction was a £750,000 payment from İşbilen’s bank account to the then Duke of York in November 2019. İşbilen says Turk falsely represented that the payment was required for assistance relating to her Turkish passport or UK residency. Turk says she voluntarily made the gift because she hoped the Duke’s connections might help her imprisoned husband.
The parties also dispute a £768,743 payment that Turk says İşbilen authorised as a loan to the Duke for the purchase of a Swiss chalet. Seeking evidence relevant to both transactions, Turk served a witness summary concerning Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor on 22 September 2026, almost two months after the 24 July deadline for witness evidence. He therefore required permission under CPR 32.9 to rely on the summary and relief from the sanction imposed by CPR 32.10.
The Court’s Holding
Mr Justice Adam Johnson granted relief from sanctions and permitted Turk to rely on the witness summary and seek to call Mountbatten-Windsor at trial. Although there was insufficient evidence of any serious attempt to obtain a voluntary witness statement, the Court found on the balance of probabilities that Mountbatten-Windsor would have declined such a request. Turk was therefore “unable” to obtain a statement within CPR 32.9. The summary adequately identified the proposed evidence and questioning, subject to correction of an erroneous dinner date.
Applying the Denton framework, the Court held that Turk’s nearly two-month default was serious and significant and that he had no good reason for it. Nevertheless, the proposed evidence was directly relevant to pleaded allegations of dishonesty that could affect the wider fraud case. Its limited scope could be accommodated within the scheduled 11-week trial without unmanageable disruption or identified prejudice to İşbilen. In those circumstances, excluding the evidence would be unfair.
Key Takeaways
- An applicant may be “unable” to obtain a witness statement under CPR 32.9 even without proving an express refusal, if the Court is satisfied that a request probably would have been declined.
- Late service of a witness summary engages CPR 32.10 and requires relief from sanctions under the three-stage Denton test.
- A serious default without good reason may still be excused where the proposed evidence is important to the pleaded issues, manageable within the trial timetable, and causes no demonstrated prejudice.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates that procedural discipline remains important, including for litigants who lacked full legal representation, but that relief from sanctions ultimately requires assessment of all the circumstances. Where dishonesty is central to a claim, the Court may give substantial weight to allowing the accused party to present relevant corroborative evidence.
The order does not establish what Mountbatten-Windsor’s evidence will be or decide the truth of either party’s account. It permits Turk only to seek to call him, likely through a witness summons, which the witness may apply to set aside or vary.