header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
12 December 2025 / Amy Dunkley
Issue: 8143 / Categories: Features , Profession , Costs , Dispute resolution
printer mail-detail

Lost in obscurity?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
238280
The High Court has ruled on vague points of dispute. Amy Dunkley reports
  • In Ward v Rai, the High Court has overturned a decision to let a non-compliant point of dispute stand, meaning the receiving party could not rely on a more detailed schedule that had been served only two working days before the detailed assessment hearing.
  • Practitioners should ensure that points of dispute contain sufficient particularisation for the receiving party to work out what is in dispute and why.

The judgment in Ward v Rai [2025] EWHC 1681 (KB) is the latest in a receiving party’s arsenal against points of dispute that are too vague. It follows the decisions in Wazen v Khan [2024] EWHC 1083 (SCCO) and St Francis Group 1 Ltd & Ors v Kelly & Anor [2025] EWHC 125 (SCCO), which confirmed that the judgment in Ainsworth v Stewarts Law LLP [2020] EWCA Civ 178 applied to detailed assessments between the parties.

The legal framework

Points of dispute must comply with CPR

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Policing the safeguards when appointing trust corporations
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
NLJ this week: What the court considers when assessing refusal of ADR
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
NLJ this week: Finding innovative ways to fund the justice gap
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
NLJ this week: Two’s company, but three’s a crowd in financial provision cases
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
Charities Appeals Supplement: March 2026
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll