How detailed should Points of Dispute be?

Points of Dispute are a critical stage in detailed assessment proceedings. For the paying party, they represent the formal opportunity to challenge the costs claimed in a Bill of Costs. For the receiving party, they define the scope of the battle ahead. Yet one of the most common questions we are asked is: how detailed should Points of Dispute be?

The answer lies in balancing compliance with the rules against strategic effectiveness. Points must be sufficiently detailed to identify real issues, but they must also remain compliant with the requirement to be short and to the point. Overly generic objections are vulnerable. Equally, sprawling submissions risk criticism for failing to follow the Practice Direction.

ARC Costs explores what the rules require, how the courts approach the issue, and how to draft effective Points of Dispute.

Points of Dispute and the CPR

Under CPR Part 47 and the associated Practice Direction, a paying party must serve Points of Dispute within 21 days of service of the Bill of Costs and Notice of Commencement. Failure to do so exposes the paying party to the risk of default costs certificates, which can significantly prejudice their position.

Practice Direction 47 provides clear drafting guidance. Points of Dispute must:

• identify any general point or principle which require decision before individual items are addressed; and
• deal with specific objections by stating concisely the nature and grounds of dispute.

They must also follow the format prescribed in the costs precedents annexed to the Practice Direction. In particular, item numbers must be inserted in the left hand box, or as the precedent describes, the “hand box as shown”, so that the Costs Officer can easily identify which items in the bill are challenged.

The emphasis is on clarity, structure, and concision.

“Short and to the Point”- What Does It Really Mean?

The requirement that Points of Dispute be short and to the point is often misunderstood. It does not mean superficial or vague. Nor does it permit blanket objections with no explanation.

Rather, it requires focus.

Points should:

• Identify the relevant item number or range of items.
• Specify the nature of the challenge (e.g. excessive time spent, unreasonable rate, duplication).
• Provide a clear basis for the objection.

For example, objecting to “time spent is excessive” without explanation is unlikely to assist the court. By contrast, identifying that 12 hours claimed for drafting a routine application is excessive given its simplicity is a focused and compliant objection.

The court expects clarity, not commentary.

General Points vs Itemised Objections

A well-drafted set of Points of Dispute typically begins with any overarching issues. These may include:

• Proportionality;
• Hourly rates;
• Delegation of work;
• Duplication across fee earners.

These overarching matters constitute a general point or principle which require decision before turning to individual entries.

After setting out any global objections, the paying party should then address specific items in the bill. Each objection should relate clearly to the relevant item number, ensuring there is no ambiguity.

The structure matters. Costs judges and Costs Officers deal with large volumes of material. Clarity improves credibility.

The Risks of Being Too Vague

The courts have repeatedly criticised generic or formulaic Points of Dispute. In Ainsworth v Stewarts Law LLP, the court examined the adequacy of objections raised and reinforced that parties must properly engage with the Bill.

While the case turned on specific issues, it reflects a broader judicial trend; vague objections are unlikely to succeed at a detailed assessment hearing.

Simply asserting that costs are “unreasonable and disproportionate” without identifying why will rarely be sufficient. The paying party must do more than signal disagreement; they must articulate the challenge.

Failure to provide adequate detail may weaken the paying party’s position and reduce their leverage in negotiations.

The Risks of Being Overly Detailed

Equally, there is danger in over-drafting.

Points of Dispute are not skeleton arguments. They are not intended to replicate a closing submission in detailed assessment proceedings. Excessively long, argumentative, or repetitive objections may attract criticism for failing to comply with the requirement to be short and to the point.

Where a point has been made once, it should not be repeated unnecessarily. The Practice Direction makes clear that once a global point is identified, the relevant item numbers should be inserted in the left hand box rather than restating the same objection repeatedly.

This is both a compliance issue and a strategic one. Overly aggressive drafting can undermine credibility before the court.

The Court of Appeal’s Guidance

The Court of Appeal has emphasised in various authorities that detailed assessment is intended to be a structured and proportionate process. Although not every case directly addresses drafting adequacy, the overarching theme is that parties must assist the court.

Detailed assessment proceedings are not an ambush. They are a disciplined exercise.

A paying party who fails to articulate objections clearly may find that the receiving party’s case is preferred. Conversely, a receiving party confronted with focused and well-drafted Points of Dispute must respond carefully and precisely.

Time Spent and Evidential Challenges

One of the most common objections concerns time spent. Here, specificity is key.

An effective objection might:

• identify duplication between fee earners;
• challenge the level of seniority deployed;
• question whether the time claimed reflects the complexity of the task.

Merely asserting that “time spent is excessive” is unlikely to carry weight at a detailed assessment hearing. Identifying why it is excessive, by reference to the nature of the task, is far more persuasive.

This approach allows the receiving party to engage meaningfully in Replies and assists the Costs Officer at assessment.

The Receiving Party’s Perspective

For the receiving party, the level of detail in Points of Dispute determines how robust their Replies must be.

Weak or generic objections can often be addressed succinctly. However, well-structured and precise Points of Dispute may require careful evidential support.

Receiving parties should scrutinise whether objections comply with the requirement of stating concisely the nature and grounds of dispute. If they do not, that may itself become a strategic point at the detailed assessment hearing.

Practical Drafting Guidance

When preparing Points of Dispute, consider the following:

1. Start with any general point or principle which require decision.
2. Follow the format in the costs precedents annexed to the Practice Direction.
3. Insert the relevant item number in the left hand box as shown.
4. Avoid repetition.
5. Keep objections concise but properly reasoned.
6. Focus on substance rather than rhetoric.

Remember that Points of Dispute set the tone for the remainder of detailed assessment proceedings. They frame the dispute and influence negotiation dynamics.

How can ARC Costs Assist?

ARC Costs prepares and advises on Points of Dispute across all areas of detailed assessment proceedings. Whether acting for a paying party seeking focused reductions or for a receiving party responding to challenges, our costs lawyers and law costs draftsmen ensure objections are properly structured, compliant with the Practice Direction, and strategically drafted. We help clients avoid procedural pitfalls, protect their position at detailed assessment hearings, and achieve commercially sensible outcomes.