High Court Orders Third-Party Disclosure in £90m Dispute Involving Nebahat Evyat Işbilen

What did the High Court decide?

In Nebahat Evyat Işbilen v Selman Turk & Ors [2026] EWHC 2635 (BP), the High Court considered an application for disclosure of documents held by EuroHold and Euro-Finance, entities that were not parties to the proceedings. Mr Justice Adam Johnson allowed the application, concluding that the requested documents were sufficiently connected to the issues in dispute and could assist in the fair resolution of the claims.

The application was made under the rules governing disclosure by non-parties. It sought documents responsive to specified keyword searches, including terms linked to Turk and his business associate Gary Lewis, Işbilen’s affairs and alleged dealings with her assets.

The court concluded that the statutory and procedural requirements for third-party disclosure were met. The parties were encouraged to agree the final form of the order, with the judge reserving the ability to hear brief submissions on any remaining issues.

What is the background to the dispute?

Işbilen is pursuing two sets of proceedings that are being managed together: a claim against Turk, a former adviser, and a related claim against Hanson, a financial services provider and asset manager. Her case alleges that she entrusted Turk with funds totalling approximately US$90 million and that he dealt with those funds in his own interests. These are allegations to be determined at trial, not findings made in this disclosure judgment.

The claim against Hanson includes a disputed transfer of approximately €28 million to a Cayman Islands fund in April 2017. Işbilen alleges that the transfer was part of a wider scheme involving her assets and that certain funds were used in transactions involving bonds issued by EuroHold. The Bulgarian companies and other parties resisted the allegations and opposed the disclosure application.

Earlier attempts to obtain documents from the Bulgarian companies through letters of request produced only limited material. Meanwhile, a much larger collection of emails remained with Interpath in England after a review undertaken for the Hanson proceedings. Işbilen sought access to relevant documents beyond those previously reviewed and disclosed.

1. November 2016 Hanson was being absorbed into the same corporate group as the Bulgarian companies following a takeover bid.
2. April 2017 Approximately €28 million was transferred to the Sentinel Fund, a transaction disputed in the underlying proceedings.
3. September–October 2025 Letters of request were issued to the relevant authorities in Bulgaria seeking documents from EuroHold and Euro-Finance.
4. 28 August 2026 Işbilen issued the third-party disclosure application.
5. 6 October 2026 The High Court heard the application shortly before the pre-trial review.
6. 15 October 2026 The High Court allowed the application.

Why was third-party disclosure permitted?

The application was considered under CPR 31.17, which governs disclosure orders against people or entities that are not parties to proceedings, alongside section 34 of the Senior Courts Act 1981. The court considered whether the requested documents were likely to support the applicant’s case or adversely affect another party’s case, whether disclosure was necessary for the fair disposal of the claim or to save costs, and whether the order should be made as a matter of discretion.

The respondents argued that keyword searches would produce broad classes of documents, some of which might be irrelevant. The judge rejected that objection in the circumstances. He explained that the test for third-party disclosure is predictive because the applicant cannot know the precise contents of documents held by someone else. The relevant question was whether the documents might well assist a party’s case or adversely affect another’s, rather than whether each document’s usefulness could already be established.

The judge considered that the requested search terms were connected to the central issues in the underlying litigation. They covered corporate entities associated with Turk and Lewis, references to Işbilen and people or organisations linked to her affairs, and terms concerning alleged transactions involving her assets. The existing records were fragmentary, and the additional material could clarify what had happened, whether it supported Işbilen’s allegations or the other parties’ positions.

“a fairer and more reliable outcome is likely to be achieved if more, rather than less, is known.”

— Mr Justice Adam Johnson, summarising the importance of a fuller documentary record

The court also found disclosure necessary for fairness. The dispute involved numerous transactions and allegations of large-scale wrongdoing. Işbilen had less access to information about the handling of her assets than the defendants and needed the documentary record to be as complete as reasonably possible before the court made findings at trial.

How did the court address confidentiality and delay?

The respondents raised concerns about duties of confidence under Bulgarian law, the possibility that documents might contain commercially sensitive information, the burden of reviewing and redacting material, and the risk that late disclosure could disrupt the trial timetable. Turk and Hanson also opposed the application, pointing to the volume of material and the time and cost involved in review.

The judge accepted that confidentiality and commercial sensitivity were relevant considerations. However, he considered that the proposed search terms were directed at communications about Işbilen and dealings with her assets, limiting the anticipated risk of unrelated sensitive material being caught. The respondents could exercise judgment over documents clearly concerning unrelated clients or business operations and could assert applicable rights or duties to withhold inspection, including through redactions where appropriate.

The court also rejected the suggestion that the third parties would need to carry out the same detailed relevance review as a party to the litigation. The third-party disclosure test had already been satisfied; the order would require production of documents within the specified categories, subject to the proper treatment of confidentiality and privilege.

Although the application was made late, the judge found that timing alone did not justify refusing it. The court could manage any impact through its control over whether newly disclosed documents could be relied on at trial, any proposed amendments to pleadings and the way documents were produced. The judgment also contemplated disclosure in stages rather than waiting for a single final production.

What happens next?

The underlying trial, estimated to last 11 weeks, was due to begin with pre-reading on 16 November 2026. The judge allowed the application and invited the parties to agree the final wording of the order. Any newly disclosed material will not automatically become part of the trial record; permission may be required before it can be relied on, and any application to amend the existing pleadings will also require the court’s permission.

The judgment does not decide whether the allegations against Turk, Hanson or the Bulgarian companies are true. Its decision concerns access to documents that may assist the court and parties in resolving those disputed issues fairly. The significance of any documents disclosed will need to be assessed as the proceedings continue.