header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us

Raising points of dispute: What’s the point?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
30 June 2023 / Laura Rees
Issue: 8031 / Categories: Features , In Court , Costs , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail
128470
Time to get to the point? Laura Rees addresses issues with the current guidance on raising points of dispute
  • Points of dispute are routinely prepared by paying parties following service of an N252. What has become clear, however, is that not all sets of points of dispute will be to the satisfaction of the court.
  • Guidance can be found in Precedent G and CPR 47 PD 8.2, but these guidelines are not particularly helpful in assisting a paying party.

Points of dispute are routinely prepared by paying parties following service of an N252. What has become clear, however, is that not all sets of points of dispute will be to the satisfaction of the court, and if prepared incorrectly, the paying party runs the risk of having all, or parts, of their points of dispute struck out.

There are a number of places where guidance can be found in relation to this issue, with Precedent G and CPR PD 47, para 8.2 providing the majority

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
HFW—Guy Marrison

HFW—Guy Marrison

Global aviation disputes practice boosted by London partner hire

Morrison Foerster—Jenny Galloway & Luke Rowland

Morrison Foerster—Jenny Galloway & Luke Rowland

Firm grows London practice with two partner promotions

Hogan Lovells—David Hansom

Hogan Lovells—David Hansom

Government contracts and procurement practice expands with London partner hire

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: The insider returns
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
NLJ this week: Drawing the line on contempt
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
NLJ this week: Stop and search by the numbers
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
NLJ this week: Looking back on the prorogation that never was
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
NLJ this week: How not to plead a schedule of loss
A construction defect claim in the Court of Appeal offers a sharp lesson in pleading discipline. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains how a catastrophically drafted schedule of loss derailed otherwise viable claims. Across the areas explored in this week's column, the message is consistent: clarity, economy and proper pleading matter more than ever
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll