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 PD 47, para 8.2. Specifically, they must be short and to the

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
Legal notice: Notice under the Trustee Act 1925

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Emergency lawyers on call as international regulatory actions soar
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
NLJ this week: Employment law’s fine margins
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
NLJ this week: Promises broken on non-molestation orders?
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
NLJ this week: Assisted dying under the legal microscope
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll