Turk (Appellant) v Legal Aid Agency (Respondent)

Case summary

Case ID

UKSC/2026/0087

Parties

Appellant(s)

Selman Turk

Respondent(s)

Legal Aid Agency

Issue

Does the High Court have jurisdiction to make a Recovery of Defence Costs Order (“RDCO”) in respect of civil contempt proceedings?

Facts

The appellant, Mr Turk, was the subject of a freezing order which imposed on him several disclosure obligations. The claimant in the underlying proceedings brought committal proceedings against the appellant, alleging a breach of those disclosure obligations (the “civil contempt proceedings”). The judge found that the appellant was in contempt of court and sentenced him to 12 months’ imprisonment. The appellant’s appeal on the question of liability was dismissed, but he successfully appealed the sanction, the Court of Appeal (“CA”) ruling that his sentence should be suspended. The appellant had obtained criminal legal aid funding for his representation in the contempt proceedings before the judge, despite the civil nature of those proceedings. At the conclusion of the proceedings, the Legal Aid Agency (“LAA”) sought a “Recovery of Defence Costs Order” (“RDCO”) from the judge. The appellant contended that the court had no jurisdiction to make an RCDO. However, after an oral hearing on 21 March 2025 the judge determined in a reserved judgment dated 8 April 2025 that the court had jurisdiction to make an RDCO and ordered the appellant to pay to the LAA the whole of the costs of his representation before the High Court (£392,823.70). The appellant appealed to the CA on the ground that the judge erred in finding that “criminal proceedings before any court other than the magistrates’ court or the Crown Court” in Regulation 2 of the Recovery Regulations included civil contempt proceedings, and therefore erred in concluding that the Recovery Regulations applied to these proceedings at all. However, the CA dismissed the appellant’s appeal. The appellant now seeks permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Date of issue

24 June 2026

Case origin

PTA

Back to top