The case concerned points of dispute regarding costs following settlement of a road traffic accident claim. It centred on whether the deputy costs judge was correct to admit amendments to the points of dispute two working days before the assessment hearing.
Deputy Costs Judge Friston allowed the amendments. On appeal, Mrs Justice Hill overturned the order on the basis the late service caused unnecessary delay and costs. Handing down the lead judgment in Ward v Rai [2026] EWCA Civ 816 last week, however, Lady Justice Falk overturned Hill J’s decision.
Falk LJ reiterated the ‘well-established’ view that appellate courts should not interfere with case management decisions simply because they disagree with them or otherwise consider that they would have taken a different course.
Nor was it realistic or appropriate ‘to expect judges to spell out aspects of the overriding objective’ when they made case management decisions, ‘not least because that would lead to a wholly disproportionate exercise in box-ticking,’ Falk LJ said.
While upholding the deputy costs judge’s decision in this case, Falk LJ reaffirmed Ainsworth v Stewarts Law [2020] EWCA Civ 178, and issued cautionary advice to litigants.
‘This was a decision that the costs judge was entitled to make within the generous ambit of his discretion,’ she said.
‘It was neither the only decision he could make, nor was it one with which other judges would necessarily agree.
‘Paying parties should be under no illusion that para 8.2 of PD 47 requires an Ainsworth compliant approach. They should not assume that a lenient approach will be taken if they take a similar approach to the defendant in this case. Those who do not comply on a timely basis risk non-compliant elements of their points of dispute being struck out or, as a minimum, cost sanctions. Similarly, late variations by either party under paragraph 13.10 of PD 47 risk being disallowed or permitted only on conditions, including as to costs.’
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=28793f10_1)
