Paul Ward v Gagandeep Rai

Paul Ward v Gagandeep Rai

The Judge erred in principle by failing to strike out Point 23 of the Respondent’s Points of Dispute, which was non-compliant with PD 47, paragraph 8.2(b) and Ainsworth, and by permitting the Respondent to rely on a late-served annotated schedule. This approach failed to give sufficient weight to the mandatory requirements of the Practice Direction and the overriding objective, resulting in unnecessary delay and costs. The Judge’s exercise of discretion under PD 47, paragraph 13.10(2) was wrong and did not balance the relevant factors fairly.

Parties
Appellant / Claimant: Paul Ward; Respondent / Defendant: Gagandeep Rai
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 April 2025
Procedural Posture
Appeal (costs Assessment) / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Detailed Assessment of Costs, Points of Dispute, Practice Direction 47, CPR 47.14, Variation of Points of Dispute, Case Management Discretion
Civil Procedure Costs Detailed Assessment of Costs Points of Dispute Practice Direction 47 CPR 47.14 Variation of Points of Dispute 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 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul Ward

Appellant / Claimant

Gagandeep Rai

Respondent / Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (costs Assessment) / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Point 23 of the Respondent’s Points of Dispute complied with PD 47, paragraph 8.2(b) and Ainsworth
  2. 2 Whether the Judge erred in refusing to strike out Point 23 and in permitting reliance on a late-served annotated schedule
  3. 3 Proper exercise of discretion under PD 47, paragraph 13.10(2)

Ratio Decidendi

The Judge erred in principle by failing to strike out Point 23 of the Respondent’s Points of Dispute, which was non-compliant with PD 47, paragraph 8.2(b) and Ainsworth, and by permitting the Respondent to rely on a late-served annotated schedule. This approach failed to give sufficient weight to the mandatory requirements of the Practice Direction and the overriding objective, resulting in unnecessary delay and costs. The Judge’s exercise of discretion under PD 47, paragraph 13.10(2) was wrong and did not balance the relevant factors fairly.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Point 23 of the Respondent’s Points of Dispute is struck out.
  • The Respondent is not permitted to rely on the annotated document schedule served late.