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
Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Firm invests in national growth with 44 appointments across five offices

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: 40 years on, has PACE lost its edge?
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
NLJ this week: Stress-testing the City
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
NLJ this week: How sure is ‘sure’ enough?
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
NLJ this week: A deferred prosecution reprieve
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
NLJ this week: Mandelson, Epstein & the court of popular opinion
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll