header-logo header-logo

NLJ this week: Don’t be vague in your points of dispute

30 June 2023
Issue: 8031 / Categories: Legal News , Costs , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail
128470
It pays to be specific when setting out points of dispute, as Laura Rees, council member of the Association of Costs Lawyers, explains in this week’s NLJ

Rees refers to a recent Court of Appeal case of Ainsworth v Stewarts Law, which was ‘the first case of its kind to raise an issue with the content of the points of dispute’.

Rees looks at this case and other recent caselaw where ‘generic points of dispute’ were found wanting. She shares advice on how to make points of dispute specific and clear, while acknowledging that this can be a difficult and arduous task.

Rees writes: ‘What is clear is that specific items and entries need to be itemised, with a clear objection made for each entry as to why the time is being challenged.’ 

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Cryptocurrency is reshaping financial remedy cases, warns Robert Webster of Maguire Family Law in NLJ this week. Digital assets—concealable, volatile and hard to trace—are fuelling suspicions of hidden wealth, yet Form E still lacks a section for crypto-disclosure
NLJ columnist Stephen Gold surveys a flurry of procedural reforms in his latest 'Civil way' column
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
back-to-top-scroll