High Court Allows Late Witness Evidence in Selman Turk Dispute Despite Missed Deadline

What did the High Court decide?

In Nebahat Evyap İşbilen v Selman Turk & Ors [2026] EWHC 2704 (BP), Mr Justice Adam Johnson granted relief from sanctions under CPR 32.10 and permission to rely on a witness summary under CPR 32.9.

The summary set out evidence Mr Turk wished to obtain from Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor about discussions concerning Mr İşbilen’s situation in Turkey and the background to two disputed payments. The judge considered that evidence relevant to the allegations of dishonesty and to Mr Turk’s account of why the payments were made.

The ruling was procedural. It allowed Mr Turk to seek to adduce the evidence at trial; it did not decide whether the disputed transactions were authorised or whether either party’s account was correct.

What is the dispute about?

Mrs İşbilen alleges that Mr Turk, a former adviser, was entrusted with substantial funds derived from her family’s businesses and dealt with them in breach of trust and in his own interests. The judgment describes the funds involved in the wider claim as totalling approximately US$90 million. Mr Turk disputes the allegations.

One issue concerns a payment of £750,000 made on 15 November 2019 from Mrs İşbilen’s account at Hampden Bank to the personal account of the then Duke of York. The money was later returned after Mrs İşbilen’s solicitors contacted the Duke, but her allegation that Mr Turk misled her about the reason for the payment remained part of the case.

Mrs İşbilen’s pleaded case was that she was told the payment was a gift connected with assistance regarding her Turkish passport. Mr Turk’s account was that Mrs İşbilen made the payment of her own accord because she hoped the Duke might be able to help her husband, who had been imprisoned in Turkey.

A second disputed transaction involved £768,743 transferred on 31 January 2020 to an account held by Alphabet Capital Ltd. Mr Turk has said that this was a loan intended to help fund the purchase of a chalet in Switzerland. Mrs İşbilen denies authorising the loan. The judge said the background to this payment remained an issue for the forthcoming trial.

Why was the witness summary late?

The deadline for serving witness statements was 24 July 2026. Mr Turk did not apply in time for permission to rely on a witness summary, which was provided on 22 September 2026. CPR 32.10 provides that a witness may not be called where a required summary has not been served within the relevant period unless the court gives permission.

1. 15 November 2019 The £750,000 payment was made from Mrs İşbilen’s account to the then Duke of York.
2. 31 January 2020 The separate £768,743 payment was made to an account in the name of Alphabet Capital Ltd.
3. 24 July 2026 Deadline for service of witness statements.
4. 22 September 2026 Mr Turk provided the witness summary in support of his application.
5. 23 October 2026 The High Court granted relief from sanctions and permission to rely on the summary.

Mr Turk relied on personal circumstances including an ADHD diagnosis, financial difficulties and the fact that he had been without legal representation for much of the proceedings. He secured solicitors and counsel in August 2026.

The judge nevertheless found no good reason for the failure to comply with the deadline. He considered that a litigant in person is expected to comply with procedural rules and that preparing the summary was within Mr Turk’s capabilities. Those circumstances did, however, provide context relevant to the final stage of the court’s assessment.

Why did the court grant relief from sanctions?

The court applied the three-stage approach in Denton v TH White Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 906. At the first stage, the judge found the default serious and significant: the summary was nearly two months late, and the issue had affected orderly preparation for an 11-week trial due to begin in November 2026.

At the second stage, the judge concluded there was no good reason for the delay. The explanations put forward did not excuse the failure, although they provided some context.

At the third stage, the judge considered all the circumstances. The proposed evidence was relevant to central issues, including the allegation that Mr Turk had been dishonest in explaining the £750,000 payment and the disputed alleged loan. The judge considered that the evidence could be accommodated within the trial timetable without serious disruption.

The judge also noted that Mrs İşbilen’s legal team had not argued that the summary raised an unexpected issue or that they would be unfairly prejudiced in dealing with it at trial. In the circumstances, he concluded that it would be unfair to allow allegations of dishonesty to be advanced without giving Mr Turk an opportunity to put forward relevant evidence in response.

What happens next?

The order permits Mr Turk to seek to call evidence from Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. The judgment says this will likely involve issuing a witness summons under CPR 34.3. A summons can be issued without further permission from the court if it is issued more than seven days before the start of the trial. A person served with a witness summons may apply to have it set aside or varied.

The underlying dispute remains unresolved. The parties’ competing accounts of the payments, the allegations of dishonesty and the relevance and weight of any evidence admitted will be matters for the trial.