Ward v Rai (Rev1) [2025] EWHC 1681 (KB) (03 July 2025)

Ward v Rai (Rev1) [2025] EWHC 1681 (KB) (03 July 2025)

The Judge's refusal to strike out Point 23 and decision to permit reliance on the annotated schedule, despite late service, fell within the wide discretion afforded by PD 47 paragraph 13.10(2) and was not outside the reasonable ambit of judicial discretion; no procedural unfairness or misapplication of legal principles occurred.

Citation
[2025] EWHC 1681 (KB)
Parties
Appellant / Claimant: Paul Ward; Respondent / Defendant: Gagandeep Rai
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 July 2025
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Detailed Assessment of Costs / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Detailed Assessment of Costs, Points of Dispute, Practice Direction Compliance, Variation of Points of Dispute, Overriding Objective, Case Management Discretion
Civil Procedure Costs Detailed Assessment of Costs Points of Dispute Practice Direction Compliance Variation of Points of Dispute Overriding Objective Case Management Discretion

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 27 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul Ward

Appellant / Claimant

Gagandeep Rai

Respondent / Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Detailed Assessment of Costs / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Point 23 of Respondent's Points of Dispute complied with PD 47 paragraph 8.2(b) and Ainsworth
  2. 2 Whether the annotated document schedule served late could be relied upon
  3. 3 Whether the Judge exercised discretion correctly under PD 47 paragraph 13.10(2)

Ratio Decidendi

The Judge's refusal to strike out Point 23 and decision to permit reliance on the annotated schedule, despite late service, fell within the wide discretion afforded by PD 47 paragraph 13.10(2) and was not outside the reasonable ambit of judicial discretion; no procedural unfairness or misapplication of legal principles occurred.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Judge's orders on detailed assessment upheld
  • Appellant to pay Respondent's costs of assessment from 3 July 2024, subject to exclusion for costs relating to late schedule