header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us

Lost in obscurity?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
12 December 2025 / Amy Dunkley
Issue: 8143 / Categories: Features , Profession , Costs , Dispute resolution
printer mail-detail
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
Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

Excello Law—Heather Horsewood & Darren Barwick

Excello Law—Heather Horsewood & Darren Barwick

North west team expands with senior private client and property hires

Ward Hadaway—Paul Wigham

Ward Hadaway—Paul Wigham

Firm boosts corporate team in Newcastle to support high-growth technology businesses

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Police, contempt and the rule of law
Can a chief constable be held responsible for disobedient officers? Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth, professor of public law at De Montfort University, examines a Court of Appeal ruling that answers firmly: yes
NLJ this week: When your brain signs the contract
Neurotechnology is poised to transform contract law—and unsettle it. Writing in NLJ this week, Harry Lambert, barrister at Outer Temple Chambers and founder of the Centre for Neurotechnology & Law, and Dr Michelle Sharpe, barrister at the Victorian Bar, explore how brain–computer interfaces could both prove and undermine consent
NLJ this week: Comparators—how close is close enough?
Comparators remain the fault line of discrimination law. In this week's NLJ, Anjali Malik, partner at Bellevue Law, and Mukhtiar Singh, barrister at Doughty Street Chambers, review a bumper year of appellate guidance clarifying how tribunals should approach ‘actual’ and ‘evidential’ comparators. A new six-stage framework stresses a simple starting point: identify the treatment first
NLJ this week: Domicile—more than where you live
In cross-border divorces, domicile can decide everything. In NLJ this week, Jennifer Headon, legal director and head of international family, Isobel Inkley, solicitor, and Fiona Collins, trainee solicitor, all at Birketts LLP, unpack a Court of Appeal ruling that re-centres nuance in jurisdiction disputes. The court held that once a domicile of choice is established, the burden lies on the party asserting its loss
NLJ this week: Arbitration’s fast lane—with guardrails
Early determination is no longer a novelty in arbitration. In NLJ this week, Gustavo Moser, arbitration specialist lawyer at Lexis+, charts the global embrace of summary disposal powers, now embedded in the Arbitration Act 1996 and mirrored worldwide. Tribunals may swiftly dismiss claims with ‘no real prospect of succeeding’, but only if fairness is preserved
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll