Building on Ainsworth, Wazen and St Francis, the court held that objections must identify specific items, explain the nature of the challenge and avoid forcing the court into an inquisitorial role.
In Ward, the defendant served a detailed annotated schedule only two working days before the hearing, prompting the court to find the approach unfair, non-compliant and contrary to the overriding objective.
Dunkley notes several recent decisions where diffuse objections—such as vague claims of duplication or excessive time—were struck out wholesale for obstructing a fair assessment.
With permission for a second appeal granted for June 2026, practitioners are warned: comply meticulously with precedent G, specify objections early and avoid ‘ambush’ tactics or risk losing arguments entirely.
