The UK’s leading firm of independent costs lawyers

Kain Knight banner for the article Ward v Rai: Practical Takeaways for Solicitors and Clients, written by Colin Campbell

Ward v Rai | Practical Takeaways for Solicitors and Clients

Posted

Author Note: This summary was written by Colin Campbell, Consultant to Kain Knight, and is take from Kain Knight’s July 2026 Costs Case Law Update. Colin is a former Costs Judge at the Royal Courts of Justice and brings extensive experience in costs law, including as joint editor of Costs Law Reports and as an accredited costs mediator.

The Issue for the Court of Appeal

On a second appeal, the issue for the Court of Appeal was whether a costs judge in detailed assessment proceedings had erred in principle in refusing to strike out Point of Dispute 23. This had challenged 134.1 hours work on documents in the claimant’s bill of costs, and  had been served in a 24-page schedule of objections only two clear business days before the hearing of the assessment. That meant that the assessment was not completed in the two allocated court days and a third day was required at additional inconvenience and expense to the Court and to the parties in order to deal with Point 23.

The first Appeal

Hill J allowed the receiving party’s appeal, holding Point 23 should have been struck out and that any unfairness to the defendant caused thereby to the paying party  would have been  entirely of his own making.

The second Appeal

The Court of Appeal disagreed, holding that the costs judge had disclosed no error of principle or failure to take relevant matters into account in reaching his decision, nor did it otherwise fall outside the ambit of his discretion. Accordingly, his decision not to strike out Point 23, thereby causing the detailed assessment to overrun, was restored.

Practical Takeaways for Solicitors and Clients

Although it allowed the appeal, the Court of Appeal make clear that parties should be under no illusion that CPR 47 Paragraph 8.2 of PD 47 requires an “Ainsworth compliant” approach, a reference to the guidance of the same court in Ainsworth v Stewarts Law LLP [2020] Costs LR 229. They should not assume that a similarly lenient approach would be taken in other cases and that any failure to comply risked having their points of dispute struck out or facing costs sanctions.

The curiosity of the case, however, is that having expressed these sentiments in forthright terms, the court nonetheless permitted the late service of Point 23 which led to the detailed assessment extending into a third day more than three months later. That has left legal practitioners asking an uncomfortable question: if Points of Dispute such as Point 23 survive, what level of default will it take for them not to?

Click here to read the full judgment of Ward v Rai [2026] EWCA Civ 816 – 2nd July 2026.

Published on 2nd July 2026, Nick McDonnell, Director and Costs Lawyer at Kain Knight Manchester, considers why the judgment matters for everyone in involved in detailed assessment proceedings. To read his article, click here.