Court of Appeal to Consider Important Costs Appeal in Ward v Rai
Written by Nick McDonnell, Director & Costs Lawyer, Kain Knight Manchester.
The Court of Appeal is due to hear the second appeal in Ward v Rai on 17 June 2026, in a case that raises significant questions about detailed assessment procedure, late amendments to Points of Dispute, and the limits of appellate intervention in costs proceedings.
Kain Knight Costs Lawyers acts for the Respondent in the appeal.
Background
The appeal has its origins in detailed assessment proceedings following the settlement of a personal injury claim.
A dispute arose concerning objections made to a substantial claim for document time. The paying party’s original Points of Dispute referred to an annotated schedule of objections which had not been served. That schedule was subsequently served only days before the detailed assessment hearing.
The receiving party argued that the original Points of Dispute failed to comply with the requirements of CPR Part 47 and the authorities governing the level of particularity required in Points of Dispute. It further argued that the late service of the annotated schedule caused significant procedural prejudice.
Deputy Costs Judge Friston declined to strike out the objections and permitted reliance upon the late-served schedule. The detailed assessment ultimately required a third day of hearing.
On appeal, Mrs Justice Hill allowed the receiving party’s appeal and set aside the Costs Judge’s decision. The judgment is reported as Ward v Rai [2025] EWHC 1681 (KB).
The paying party has now obtained permission to bring a second appeal before the Court of Appeal.
The Issues Before the Court of Appeal
Although arising from a relatively narrow procedural dispute, the appeal raises issues of wider significance for costs practitioners.
The principal questions include:
1. How should appellate courts approach discretionary costs decisions?
The paying party argues that the High Court impermissibly interfered with a discretionary case management decision.
A central feature of the appeal is the Appellant’s disputed contention that Mrs Justice Hill dismissed each of the specific grounds advanced by the receiving party but nevertheless allowed the appeal based upon an overall assessment of the case.
The Court of Appeal will therefore be asked to consider the proper limits of appellate review where a first-instance judge has exercised a broad discretion.
2. What is the significance of non-compliant Points of Dispute?
The appeal also revisits the continuing impact of the Court of Appeal’s decision in Ainsworth v Stewarts Law LLP.
The High Court held that the original Points of Dispute were not compliant with the relevant Practice Direction because they failed properly to identify the specific challenges being made.
The case therefore provides another opportunity for the Court of Appeal to consider the level of detail required from paying parties and the consequences of non-compliance.
3. When should late amendments be permitted?
A further issue concerns the operation of CPR 47 PD 13.10 and the court’s discretion to permit variations to Points of Dispute.
The High Court concluded that the Costs Judge failed to give sufficient weight to the overriding objective when permitting reliance on a schedule served only shortly before the hearing.
The Court of Appeal’s decision may provide valuable guidance on how courts should approach late attempts to cure procedural deficiencies in costs proceedings.
4. What role does the overriding objective play?
The appeal also highlights the tension between determining costs disputes on their merits and ensuring efficient, proportionate litigation.
The High Court placed considerable emphasis on the consequences of the late amendment, including the need for an additional hearing day and the resulting increase in costs and delay.
The Court of Appeal will be asked to consider whether those factors justified appellate intervention.
Why the Appeal Matters
Although the dispute concerns a specific detailed assessment, the implications extend well beyond the parties involved.
The outcome may affect:
- The drafting of Points of Dispute in detailed assessment proceedings.
- The extent to which parties can rely on supplementary schedules and documents not served in accordance with procedural requirements.
- The circumstances in which late amendments will be permitted.
- The degree of deference appellate courts should give to specialist costs judges exercising case management discretion.
- The practical application of the overriding objective within costs litigation.
For costs practitioners, the appeal represents an important opportunity for the Court of Appeal to provide further guidance on the balance between procedural compliance and substantive justice in detailed assessment proceedings.
Looking Ahead
The appeal is listed to be heard on 17 July 2026.
Given the importance of the issues raised, the Court’s decision is likely to be of considerable interest to costs lawyers, solicitors, costs judges and those involved in detailed assessment proceedings generally.
Nick McDonnell and Sianette Boyden of Kain Knight Costs Lawyers, Manchester, act for the Respondent in the appeal and will provide a further update once judgment has been heard and handed down.
