Points of Dispute that are vague, generic or unparticularised have long been a problem in detailed assessment processes. Ward v Rai has now been considered twice – first by the High Court, which struck out a non-compliant point of dispute, and then by the Court of Appeal, which restored the original costs judge’s decision not to strike it out. For solicitors and costs practitioners preparing or responding to Points of Dispute, the final Court of Appeal outcome is the one that matters – and it’s a more nuanced result than the earlier High Court ruling suggested.

The Background to Ward v Rai

The claim arose from a road traffic accident in September 2019. Liability was admitted, and Mr Ward’s claim settled in January 2023 by way of a Part 36 offer for £546,984. Detailed assessment followed, with the Bill of Costs claiming 134.1 hours of document time across 418 individual items.

Mr Rai’s Points of Dispute challenged this document time under Point 23, but identified no specific items and stated no particularised grounds – instead indicating that an annotated schedule would follow. That schedule wasn’t served until roughly two working days before the two-day detailed assessment hearing, and it identified, for the first time, which individual items were disputed across eight categories of objection.

Mr Ward applied to strike out Point 23 and the late schedule. Deputy Costs Judge Friston refused, and instead adjourned the hearing to a third day, with costs sanctions to be determined later.

The High Court’s Decision: Ward v Rai [2025] EWHC 1681 (KB)

Mr Ward appealed. Mrs Justice Hill, sitting with a costs judge as assessor, allowed the appeal on an overarching basis. She held that Point 23 was plainly non-compliant with PD 47, paragraph 8.2(b), and with the Court of Appeal’s guidance in Ainsworth v Stewarts Law LLP [2020] EWCA Civ 178, in here view, even less particularised than the points found deficient in that earlier case. The court found that the defendant has known the point was considered non-complaint for around seven months, yet took no steps to remedy it until two working days before the hearing. On this reasoning, the deputy costs judge’s approach was wrong, and the late schedule ought to have been disallowed.

The Court of Appeal’s Decision: Ward v Rai [2026] EWCA Civ 816

Mr Rai appealed further, and the Court of Appeal reversed the High Court, restoring the deputy costs judge’s original case management decision. Lady Justice Falk, giving the lead judgment, held that the costs judge has correctly identified Point 23 as non-compliant with PD 47, paragraph 8.2(b) – that part of the reasoning stood. Where the High Court went wrong, in the Court of Appeal’s view, was in substituting its own view for a case management decision that fell within the “generous ambit” of the costs judge’s discretion under PD 47, paragraph 13.10(2).

The Court of Appeal made clear that strike-out was not the only course open to the costs judge, even though another judge might reasonably have reached a different conclusion. The delay in serving the schedule was not a good excuse for non-compliance, but it wasn’t egregious either, and the costs judge was entitled to weigh that in exercising his discretion.

Falk LJ added several observations of wider relevance to costs practitioners:

• Ex tempore case management judgments should be read as a whole, not picked apart line by line,
• Advocates who consider a judgment deficient should raise that with the judge at the time, not save it for appeal.
• Appeals against case management decisions that raise no real point of principle do the justice system no credit, particularly where the costs of the appeal dwarf the sums genuinely at stake.

Permission for a further appeal to the Supreme Court does not currently appear to have been sought, so the Court of Appeal’s decision stands as the current position.

Why the Points of Dispute Were Still Considered Non-Compliant

Its worth being clear that the Court of Appeal did not disagree with the underlying compliance analysis. PD 47, paragraph 8.2 requires Points of Dispute to identify general points or matters of principle before addressing individual items in the Bill of Costs, and to state the nature and grounds of dispute concisely for each one. A point that simply asserts a category of costs is excessive, without engaging with specific entries, still doesn’t meet that standard – Ainsworth remains good law on that point, and Point 23 remained non-compliant throughout.

What changed between the High Court and Court of Appeal was not whether the point was compliant, but what a costs judge is entitled to do about it – and how much latitude an appellate court should give that decision.

What This Means in Practice

For paying parties preparing Points of Dispute, the practical lesson hasn’t softened much despite the Court of Appeals’ outcome. Falk LJ was explicit that paying parties should not assume a lenient approach will always be taken. Points of Dispute still need to identify general points of principle and then set out concise, particularised grounds for each individual item, served within the usual 21 days under CPR 47.13. Promising a schedule “to follow” remains a real procedural risk; in this case, it happened to survive scrutiny, but the Court of Appeal’s own language makes clear that the outcome depends heavily on the specific facts, not a general entitlement to serve late.

For receiving parties, the case is a reminder that a costs judge’s case management discretion on non-compliant points is wide, and the appellate courts will be reluctant to interfere with it absent a genuine point of principle. Flagging non-compliance early and in writing remains the right approach, but receiving parties shouldn’t assume that non-compliance automatically leads to strike-out – much will depend on the specific costs judge’s assessment of prejudice and proportionality.

Quick FAQs

What did the Court of Appeal decide in Ward v Rai?

The Court of Appeal restored a costs judge’s decision not to strike out a non-compliant Point of Dispute and to allow reliance on a late annotated schedule, holding that the decision fell within the judge’s wide case management discretion.

Does this mean non-compliant Points of Dispute are safe from strike-out?

No. The Court of Appeal confirmed the points remained non-compliant with PD 47, paragraph 8.2(b); it rather held that strike-out wasn’t the only permissible response, and wanted paying parties not to assume leniency will be repeated.

What is the current legal status of Ward v Rai?

Ward v Rai [2026] EWCA Civ 816 is the current, binding outcome, reversing the earlier High Court decision in Ward v Rai [2025] EWHC 1681 (KB).

Speak to Greener Costs

Our team of costs lawyers and costs draftsmen prepares and responds to Points of Dispute across a wide range of case types, ensuring compliance with PD 47 and the standards set by cases such as Ainsworth and Ward v Rai.

If you’d like advice on Points of Dispute in your case, get in touch with the Greener Cost team today for a free, no-obligation discussion. Call us on 01204 263047 or email info@greenercosts.co.uk.