An eye for detail: Court of Appeal reinforces the wide discretion for case management decisions - Lucy Stock, Temple Garden Chambers
13/08/26. On 2 July 2026, in the Court of Appeal, Falk LJ handed down the leading judgment in Ward v Rai [2026] EWCA Civ 816: the most recent decision dealing with the scope of the court’s discretion in case management decisions.
Background
The claim related to a road traffic accident that occurred on 18 September 2019 and was settled by way of a Part 36 Offer in January 2023 at £546,984, with costs subject to a detailed assessment if not agreed. The focus of the detailed assessment proceedings was the claim for 134.1 hours for work on documents by the Claimant; this was challenged under Point 23 contained in the Defendant’s points of dispute and supported by a late-filed annotated documents schedule.
The Claimant contended that Point 23 should be dismissed as it was not compliant with the principles laid out in Ainsworth v Stewarts law LLP [2020] EWCA Civ 178, and that the Defendant should not be permitted to rely on the annotated documents schedule.
Detailed Assessment Procedure
The procedure governing detailed assessment is found under CPR rule 47 and Practice Direction 47. Points of dispute are permitted in accordance with CPR 47.9 and must be served within 21 days (subject to extension by agreement): the content of points of dispute are dealt with under para 8 of PD 47. The ruling in Ainsworth v Stewarts Law LLP [2020] EWCA Civ 178 clarified that paragraph 8.2 of PD 47 included requiring general points to be identified “and then specific points should be made ‘stating concisely the nature and grounds of dispute’” [37]. Such points should be drafted in a way which enables the parties and the court to determine precisely what is in dispute and why. The strike out power under CPR rule 3.4(2)(b) or (c) for points of dispute is one of wide discretion.
The First Instance Decision & Second Appeal
At first instance, Deputy Costs Judge Friston (“Friston DCJ”) gave an ex tempore judgment with the following orders: (i) refusing to strike out Point 23; (ii) allowing the Defendant to rely on a late-filed schedule setting out details of the challenges to that section; and (iii) adjourning the detailed assessment to a third day.
Friston DCJ summarised the test approved in Ainsworth as being whether there was sufficient...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/tumpikuja
![Appeal judge rules that credit hire company has no costs liability following a finding of fundamental dishonesty in personal injury case: RSA v. Fastrack Solutions Limited [2023] 4 WLUK 92 - David Bowden, Erimus Chambers](/content/images/resized/images/stories/carkeys_72_72.jpg)
