How detailed should points of dispute be?

Points of dispute are the paying party’s formal objections to the costs claimed in detailed assessment proceedings. They should tell the receiving party and the court what is disputed and why. That requires more than stating that the bill is excessive, but it does not require repeating the complete history of the underlying case against every item.

Practice Direction 47 addresses the form and content of the document, including concise points directed to matters that need determination. The prescribed framework should guide preparation. The objective is a usable statement of the real dispute, with enough precision for the opponent to respond and the court to resolve the issues.

Some objections affect the bill as a whole or a group of items. These may concern entitlement, the applicable basis of assessment, rates or a recurring approach to particular work. Other points relate to a specific entry or disbursement. Keeping those categories separate avoids repeating the same argument across many pages without adding substance.

An objection to time should identify what work is challenged and the reason for the criticism. If duplication is alleged, the relevant entries and their relationship need attention. If an item appears unsupported, identify the information required rather than assuming that missing evidence proves it was never incurred. The bill and available papers should be read together.

A focused point links the objection to the actual item, the relevant principle and the proposed approach to assessment where appropriate. Assertions about reasonableness or proportionality need context. Complexity, the work required and the course of the litigation can all matter; the size of the claim alone is not a complete analysis of recoverable costs.

For complex matters, carefully chosen representative items can help explain a recurring issue, subject to the applicable procedural requirements. Avoid unsupported standard wording that could be attached to any bill. The point should still make sense when read beside the particular entry and the chronology of the case.

Replies to points of dispute give the receiving party an opportunity to address the objections and identify supporting material. A clear point makes it easier to obtain a useful reply. A vague point may prompt a general denial, leaving both parties with less information when considering settlement.

Once the main issues are understood, negotiations can be directed towards the points with meaningful financial or legal consequences. It is worth distinguishing a defensible objection from one worth pursuing to a hearing. The likely benefit of a reduction must be considered alongside the expense, uncertainty and procedural implications of continued assessment.

CPR Part 47 contains the response timetable and provisions relevant to default. Do not calculate a date from a general description of when the bill arrived. Check the notice, service circumstances, any agreement or order and the current rules. If the deadline is close or has passed, obtain case-specific advice promptly before deciding how to proceed.

Our Costs Lawyers review paying-party instructions with the costs order, bill, relevant records and commercial priorities in view. High-value bills may involve multiple phases, changes in experts or questions about funding. Careful initial review helps identify which issues need detailed attention and which should not distract from the substance of the dispute.

Before finalising the document, read the objections against the bill rather than in isolation. Can the reader find the item or group challenged? Is the reason different from an objection already made elsewhere? Does the proposed reduction have an explained basis where one is appropriate? These checks help distinguish a focused challenge from a collection of standard assertions. They are particularly useful when several people have contributed to the draft and terminology or numbering has become inconsistent.

Take a hypothetical allegation of duplicated attendance. The relevant question is not simply whether two fee earners recorded time on the same day. Their roles, the work actually undertaken and the explanation in the records may matter. A useful objection identifies the entries and explains why the involvement appears unnecessary or overlapping. The receiving party can then answer the specific concern. Neither the presence of two entries nor a bare assertion of duplication decides the issue without the surrounding circumstances.

For a lengthy bill, maintain an internal schedule showing the categories challenged, supporting information and unresolved questions. That schedule is a working aid, not a substitute for compliant points of dispute. It can help the instructing team evaluate the financial significance of the objections and prepare for negotiations. Review it when replies arrive so that a satisfactorily explained item does not remain a distraction. The aim is a document that exposes the real disagreement and supports a proportionate strategy, rather than one judged by how many pages it contains.