In civil proceedings in England and Wales, a court-issued witness summons can require a witness to attend court to give evidence or produce documents. If a party cannot obtain a witness statement, they can apply for permission to rely on a witness summary. These are separate procedures: a witness summary does not itself compel attendance.
“It is highly unlikely that a person in the position of Mr Mountbatten-Windsor would wish voluntarily to provide a witness statement and give evidence at a trial in public proceedings involving payments made by a wife of a person said to be a political prisoner in Turkey, in connection with a dispute about the reason the payments were made”
Can an unwilling witness be required to give evidence?
A witness’s reluctance to become involved does not necessarily prevent a party from seeking their evidence. The High Court’s judgment of 23 October 2026 in İşbilen v Turk & Ors [2026] EWHC 2704 (BP) illustrates how witness summaries and witness summonses can be used when a proposed witness is unlikely to cooperate voluntarily.
Mr Justice Adam Johnson gave Selman Turk permission to rely on a witness summary concerning Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor and to seek to call his evidence at trial. The judgment did not itself compel Mr Mountbatten-Windsor to attend: the court explained that a further step, likely a witness summons, would be needed.
Why was Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s evidence relevant?
Nebahat Işbilen alleges that her former adviser, Selman Turk, was entrusted with substantial funds derived from her family’s business in Turkey and dealt with those funds in breach of trust and for his own benefit. Her husband has been imprisoned in Turkey since December 2015. Mr Turk denies dishonesty.
One disputed issue concerns a £750,000 payment to the then Duke of York. Mrs Işbilen alleges that Mr Turk misled her about why the payment was needed.
Mrs Işbilen’s account is that Mr Turk told her she needed to make the “gift” in connection with assistance Mr Mountbatten-Windsor had provided in relation to her Turkish passport.
Mr Turk’s account is different. He says Mrs Işbilen proposed the payment herself because she believed the then Duke of York could use his connections in Turkey to help her imprisoned husband. Mrs Işbilen disputes that account.
Mr Mountbatten-Windsor later repaid the money, and there is no suggestion of wrongdoing on his part. Mr Turk sought his evidence to support his defence on the disputed reason for the payment. The application concerned whether that evidence could be sought, not a final determination of the underlying allegations.
What is a witness summary?
A witness summary sets out the evidence a party expects a witness to give, or the matters they want to question the witness about if that evidence is not known. Under Civil Procedure Rule (CPR) 32.9, a party required to serve a witness statement but unable to obtain one may apply for permission to serve a witness summary instead.
Mr Turk’s summary covered both known evidence and matters he wanted to ask about. A witness summary is not a statement signed by the witness and does not require the witness to attend court. Unless the court orders otherwise, it must be served within the period for serving witness statements.
What is a witness summons?
A witness summons is a document issued by the court requiring a witness to attend court to give evidence or produce documents. It is governed by CPR Part 34. Unlike a witness summary, its purpose is to require attendance or the production of documents, rather than outline anticipated evidence.
A person served with a witness summons may apply to have it set aside or varied. Failure to comply with a witness summons in the High Court can amount to contempt of court, with potentially serious consequences, including imprisonment. Those consequences are not automatic.
What did the High Court decide in İşbilen v Turk?
The court accepted that Mr Turk should be treated as unable to obtain a witness statement from Mr Mountbatten-Windsor and that he had shown a sufficient case for the relevance of the evidence sought. Because the witness summary was late, the court also had to consider relief from sanctions. It granted relief and the necessary permissions.
The decision allowed Mr Turk to seek Mr Mountbatten-Windsor’s evidence; it did not guarantee his attendance or establish what he would say. Mr Justice Adam Johnson said that “it would be unfair and unjust to prevent Mr Turk at this stage from seeking to adduce” Mountbatten-Windsor’s witness evidence.
What is the difference between a witness summary and a witness summons?
A witness summary outlines anticipated evidence when a witness statement cannot be obtained. A witness summons requires a witness to attend court or produce documents. A party may need both, but permission to rely on a summary is not the same as an order requiring attendance.
The dispute over Mrs Işbilen’s £750,000 payment illustrates why that distinction matters. The judgment gave Mr Turk an opportunity to seek evidence supporting a central part of his defence, while leaving the separate procedure for compelling attendance to be addressed. It also illustrates that a proposed witness’s public profile does not, by itself, prevent a party from seeking their evidence through the court’s procedures.
