PAUL WARD v RAI [2026] EWCA Civ 816
Overview
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Ward v Rai is an important reminder of two principles in detailed assessment proceedings. Ainsworth v Stewarts Law LLP remains the leading authority on the need for properly particularised Points of Dispute and Costs Judges retain a broad case management discretion when deciding how to deal with non-compliance.
The judgment does not relax the requirements of PD47 paragraph 8.2 or endorse defective Points of Dispute. Instead, it confirms that a Costs Judge may, depending on the circumstances, choose a sanction short of strike out and that appellate courts should be slow to interfere with such discretionary decisions.
Background
The underlying personal injury claim arose from a road traffic accident in September 2019. The claim settled in January 2023 when the Claimant accepted a Part 36 offer of £546,984. Detailed assessment proceedings commenced in August 2023.
The dispute focused on Item 39 of the Bill of Costs, which claimed 134.1 hours for work on documents, valued at £38,819.50 plus VAT. Most of the time claimed related to Grade A fee earners. The total bill was £129,196.50 including VAT. The Defendant served Points of Dispute and Point 23 challenged the documents time and stated that the Defendant would rely on an annotated documents schedule. However, no such schedule was served. Instead, Point 23 contained a number of general criticisms and proposed that documents time should be reduced to 68 hours and 12 minutes.
In its Replies, the Claimant argued that Point 23 did not comply with PD47 paragraph 8.2(b) or the principles in Ainsworth because it failed to identify specific entries or explain properly the nature and grounds of dispute. The Claimant nevertheless responded to the general criticisms raised. The annotated schedule was eventually served on 31 July 2024, only a few days before the detailed assessment hearing listed for 5 and 6 August 2024. For the first time, it identified the individual entries being challenged and provided detailed objections.
Detailed Assessment
At the hearing, the Claimant sought to strike out Point 23; and the Judge’s refusal of permission for the Defendant to rely on the late-served annotated schedule.
The Costs Judge declined both applications. He accepted that the annotated schedule had been served very late but concluded that the Claimant broadly understood the case being advanced; both parties bore some responsibility for failing to address the issue earlier; the court would be assisted by having the detailed schedule available; and any prejudice caused by the delay could be addressed through case management directions and costs sanctions.
The hearing was adjourned and later resumed. The Bill was ultimately assessed at £89,032.62 plus interest.
The High Court Appeal
The Claimant appealed successfully to the High Court. Although Mrs Justice Hill rejected a number of the specific criticisms made of the Costs Judge’s reasoning, she concluded that his overall approach was wrong. In her view, insufficient weight had been given to:
The requirements of PD47 paragraph 8.2(b); the guidance in Ainsworth; and the overriding objective.
The High Court therefore struck out Point 23, refused permission to rely on the annotated schedule and set aside the Costs Judge’s decision.
The Court of Appeal Decision
The Court of Appeal allowed the Defendant’s appeal and restored the Costs Judge’s decision. The Court emphasised that the appeal concerned a discretionary case management decision. The question was not whether the appellate court would have reached the same conclusion but whether the Costs Judge’s decision was one that he was entitled to make.
Lady Justice Falk held that the Costs Judge had not: misdirected himself in law; failed to consider relevant factors; taken irrelevant matters into account; or reached a decision outside the generous ambit within which reasonable judges may disagree.
As a result, the High Court had effectively substituted its own view for that of the Costs Judge, which was impermissible on an appeal concerning case management discretion.
Key Principles
- Ainsworth remains good law. The Court of Appeal reaffirmed that Points of Dispute must comply with PD47 paragraph 8.2 and identify specific challenges together with the nature and grounds of dispute. Paying parties should continue to adopt an Ainsworth-compliant approach.
- Non-compliance does not mandate strike out. The decision confirms that defective Points of Dispute do not automatically result in strike out. The court has a range of available responses, including Strike out; refusal of permission to rely on supplemental material; costs sanctions; adjournment; or permission to remedy the defect on appropriate terms.
- Costs Judges have a wide discretion. The central message of the case is that Costs Judges retain significant discretion when managing procedural defaults. The Court of Appeal expressly recognised that another judge might have struck out Point 23, but it was equally open to the Costs Judge to permit reliance on the late-served schedule. The issue was not whether the decision was the best one, but whether it was a permissible one.
- Late clarification remains hazardous. The Court warned paying parties not to assume that similar leniency will be shown in future. Non-compliant Points of Dispute and late attempts to cure defects continue to carry a substantial risk of strike out, exclusion of evidence or adverse costs consequences.
Practical Implications
Ward v Rai should not be viewed as authority for the proposition that defective Points of Dispute can safely be corrected shortly before a hearing. Rather, it demonstrates that the consequences of non-compliance are fact-sensitive and will depend on judicial discretion.
The safest approach remains unchanged. Paying parties should serve fully particularised, Ainsworth-compliant Points of Dispute from the outset and avoid relying on the possibility that a court may later permit clarification or supplementation. Equally, receiving parties should not assume that non-compliance will inevitably lead to strike out.
This briefing note is intended as a summary of the decision and should not be relied upon as legal advice.
Related People
Malcolm Goodwin
Costs Lawyer
Domenico Malatesta
Costs Lawyer
