Wazen v Khan [2024] EWHC 1083 (SCCO) (19 March 2024)

Wazen v Khan [2024] EWHC 1083 (SCCO) (19 March 2024)

Point 3 of the points of dispute failed to comply with the requirements of CPR 47 and Practice Direction 47, as interpreted in Ainsworth v Stewarts Law LLP, because it did not identify the specific items challenged or provide sufficient particularity, rendering it unfair to the receiving party and unworkable for the court. Ainsworth applies to inter partes assessments, and while a lower level of particularity may be acceptable, the defendant's submissions were too broad and general.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 1083 (SCCO)
Parties
Claimant: Lauren Wazen; Defendant: Dr Nasir Khan
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 March 2024
Procedural Posture
Costs Assessment (detailed Assessment) / Preliminary Issue Ruling on Points of Dispute Compliance
Outcome
Point 3 of the points of dispute struck out for non-compliance; permission to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
Points of Dispute, Detailed Assessment, CPR 47, Practice Direction 47, Guideline Hourly Rates, Apportionment of Costs
Civil Procedure Costs Points of Dispute Detailed Assessment CPR 47 Practice Direction 47 Guideline Hourly Rates Apportionment of Costs

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 23
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lauren Wazen

Claimant

Dr Nasir Khan

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Costs Assessment (detailed Assessment) / Preliminary Issue Ruling on Points of Dispute Compliance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether point 3 of the points of dispute complies with the requirements under CPR 47 and Practice Direction 47 as interpreted in Ainsworth v Stewarts Law LLP
  2. 2 Whether Ainsworth applies to inter partes assessments or only solicitor-client assessments
  3. 3 What level of particularity is required in points of dispute for inter partes costs assessments

Ratio Decidendi

Point 3 of the points of dispute failed to comply with the requirements of CPR 47 and Practice Direction 47, as interpreted in Ainsworth v Stewarts Law LLP, because it did not identify the specific items challenged or provide sufficient particularity, rendering it unfair to the receiving party and unworkable for the court. Ainsworth applies to inter partes assessments, and while a lower level of particularity may be acceptable, the defendant's submissions were too broad and general.

Court Disposition

Point 3 of the points of dispute struck out for non-compliance; permission to appeal refused.

Orders

  • Point 3 of the points of dispute (disclosure and ADR challenges) is struck out.
  • Hourly rates allowed: Grade A at £400, Grade B at £340, Grade C at £265, Grade D at £139.