Ward v Rai: Points of Dispute, Late Schedules and the Limits of Ainsworth Challenges

Jul 13
7 min read

The Court of Appeal decision in Ward v Rai [2026] EWCA Civ 816 is an important costs judgment for both paying and receiving parties involved in detailed assessment proceedings. The case concerned a disputed work on documents claim, a point of dispute which referred to an annotated schedule that had not been served with the Points of Dispute, and a late attempt by the paying party to rely on that schedule shortly before the detailed assessment hearing.

For costs practitioners, the judgment is a useful reminder of three practical points:

Points of Dispute must comply with PD 47 and the approach in Ainsworth.
Late schedules or variations can create real procedural risk.
The court retains a wide case management discretion, even where a party has failed to comply properly.

The decision is particularly relevant to paying parties preparing Points of Dispute under deadline pressure, and to receiving parties considering whether defective or late challenges should be struck out.

Background to Ward v Rai

The underlying claim arose from a road traffic accident. Liability was admitted, subject to causation and quantum, and the claim settled by acceptance of a Part 36 offer of £546,984.

Detailed assessment proceedings were then commenced by the claimant. The bill of costs included a substantial claim for work on documents: 134.1 hours, supported by a 24-page schedule, amounting to £38,819.50 plus VAT. The total bill, including counsel’s fees and disbursements, was £129,196.50 including VAT. The defendant served Points of Dispute. One of those points, Point 23, challenged the work on documents claim. It stated that the defendant would rely on an annotated schedule of objections, but that schedule was not served with the Points of Dispute.

The claimant objected, arguing that the challenge was not sufficiently specific and did not identify the individual bill entries in dispute. The claimant relied on the principle that a receiving party must be able to understand the nature and grounds of the dispute in order to respond properly.

The Late Annotated Schedule

The timing of the annotated schedule was central to the dispute. The detailed assessment hearing was listed for 5 and 6 August 2024. The defendant filed and served the annotated documents schedule at around 4.45pm on 31 July 2024, only shortly before the hearing. The schedule identified, for the first time, the individual items in dispute. At the hearing, the claimant invited the Costs Judge to strike out Point 23 and refuse permission for the defendant to rely on the annotated schedule. The Costs Judge declined to do so and adjourned the assessment to a third day. The issue then became whether that decision was one the Costs Judge was entitled to make.

The Relevant Rules: PD 47 and Ainsworth

The Court of Appeal reviewed the relevant procedural framework. Under CPR 47.9, Points of Dispute are served in response to a bill of costs. PD 47 paragraph 8.2 requires Points of Dispute to be short and to the point, but also to identify specific points and state concisely the nature and grounds of dispute. PD 47 paragraph 13.10 allows a party to vary a bill, Points of Dispute or a reply by filing and serving an amended or supplementary document. Permission is not required in advance, but the court may disallow the variation or impose conditions, including costs conditions.

The Court also considered Ainsworth v Stewarts Law LLP, where the Court of Appeal emphasised that Points of Dispute must enable both the parties and the court to understand what is disputed and why. That principle remains important. A paying party cannot simply make vague assertions of excessiveness and hope to fill in the detail later.

What the Costs Judge Decided

The Costs Judge accepted that the late schedule was unsatisfactory. However, he refused to strike out Point 23. He considered that the original Points of Dispute were sufficient to permit a broad-brush assessment, and that both parties knew a further document was expected. He also took the view that both sides bore some responsibility for the schedule not being dealt with sooner.

The Costs Judge considered that PD 47 paragraph 13.10 gave him wide powers. Although the schedule had been served very late, he concluded that an adjournment was inevitable and that the court would be assisted by having the annotated schedule available. He therefore allowed reliance on it, subject to costs consequences. That was not a ringing endorsement of the defendant’s conduct. It was a discretionary case management decision made in difficult circumstances.

The High Court Appeal

The Claimant appealed to the High Court. The High Court Judge concluded that Point 23 did not comply with PD 47 paragraph 8.2 or the approach in Ainsworth, because it made general assertions and failed to identify specific items or why they were disputed.

The High Court ultimately set aside the Costs Judge’s decision, struck out Point 23 and refused permission to rely on the annotated schedule. The defendant then appealed to the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal’s Decision

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal. The central issue was not whether the Court of Appeal would have made the same decision as the Costs Judge. The issue was whether the Costs Judge’s case management decision was outside the generous ambit of his discretion. The Court of Appeal emphasised that appellate courts should not interfere with case management decisions simply because they would have taken a different course. Interference is justified only where there has been an error of law, a failure to take relevant matters into account, reliance on irrelevant matters, or a decision that is plainly wrong. Lady Justice Falk concluded that the High Court had strayed beyond those limits. The Costs Judge’s decision disclosed no error of principle and did not fall outside the scope of his discretion. The Court of Appeal therefore restored the Costs Judge’s decision.

Does This Mean Late Points of Dispute Will Be Allowed?

No. This is the most important practical point. The Court of Appeal was careful not to suggest that paying parties can safely serve incomplete Points of Dispute and then provide detailed schedules shortly before a hearing. The Court expressly warned paying parties that PD 47 paragraph 8.2 requires an Ainsworth-compliant approach. Paying parties should not assume that a lenient approach will be taken if they adopt a similar course. Non-compliance risks strike out or costs sanctions. That warning matters. The defendant succeeded in this appeal because the issue was within the scope of the Costs Judge’s discretion. It does not mean the defendant’s approach was good practice. It was not.

Practical Lessons for Paying Parties

For paying parties, the message is straightforward. Points of Dispute should be properly particularised from the outset. Where a paying party wishes to challenge a large work on documents claim, it should identify the nature of the challenge and provide sufficient detail to allow the receiving party to understand the case being advanced. A general objection that the time claimed is excessive may not be enough.

Where an annotated schedule is required, it should be served with the Points of Dispute or as soon as possible thereafter. Leaving it until shortly before the hearing creates unnecessary risk. The paying party may face:

an application to strike out the point;
refusal to rely on the late schedule;
an adjournment;
adverse costs consequences;
criticism from the court;
reduced negotiating leverage.

The safest approach is to draft Points of Dispute properly and serve any supporting schedules in good time.

Practical Lessons for Receiving Parties

Receiving parties should also take care. If Points of Dispute refer to a missing schedule or appear insufficiently particularised, the receiving party should consider raising the issue promptly rather than waiting until the hearing.

In Ward v Rai, the Costs Judge considered that both parties had some responsibility because the missing schedule had not been chased earlier. That does not remove the paying party’s obligation to serve proper Points of Dispute. But it does show that the court may consider the conduct of both parties when deciding what case management order is appropriate. A receiving party who waits until the hearing to complain may still succeed, but the position may be stronger if the issue has been raised earlier and clearly.

Why the Decision Matters

Ward v Rai is not a relaxation of the rules. It is a reminder that costs proceedings remain subject to active case management, and that appellate courts will be slow to interfere with discretionary decisions made by specialist costs judges.

The judgment sits between two important principles:

Points of Dispute must be properly drafted.
The court retains discretion when deciding how to deal with defects, lateness and procedural unfairness.

For practitioners, the case reinforces the importance of getting Points of Dispute right at the outset. For paying parties, it is a warning: do not assume that a broad challenge can be cured later. For receiving parties, it is also a warning: if a point is defective, raise the issue early and clearly.

SPH Costs Comment

This decision is particularly relevant where a paying party is served with a substantial Bill of Costs and faces a tight deadline for Points of Dispute. The 21-day deadline under CPR 47 is short. However, Points of Dispute still need to be properly considered, sufficiently particularised and tactically useful. Rushed or generic Points of Dispute may create serious problems later, especially where the challenge concerns work on documents, hourly rates, proportionality, duplication, attendance notes, correspondence, disclosure, expert evidence or other substantial parts of the bill.

Where a deadline is approaching, the paying party should seek costs advice promptly and provide the Bill of Costs, Notice of Commencement and relevant background documents as soon as possible.

Need Help With Points of Dispute?

SPH Costs assists paying parties with Bills of Costs, Points of Dispute, detailed assessment proceedings and costs negotiation. If you have been served with a Bill of Costs and the deadline for Points of Dispute is approaching, early action is important.

Please provide: