Points of Dispute

Under CPR Part 47, a paying party who wishes to challenge the Bill serves Points of Dispute. Practice Direction 47 expects them to be short and to the point, while still identifying the nature and grounds of each dispute. Precedent G provides the familiar format.

The document is not merely a list of reductions. It should distinguish preliminary or general issues from item-specific challenges and explain the position sufficiently for the receiving party to reply. A coherent structure allows the costs judge to use the Points as an agenda at assessment.

We review the costs order, Bill, budget, relevant procedural documents, offers and supporting papers. Understanding what happened in the litigation is essential. Work that looks substantial in isolation may be explained by an opponent’s application, unusual disclosure exercise or changing expert evidence; equally, a high-level narrative may not justify the time actually claimed.

Our review considers the standard or indemnity basis, proportionality, hourly rates, grade and delegation, time spent, duplication, disbursements, funding and VAT. We also check whether the Bill’s format and phase allocation allow the claim to be tested properly.

Each Point should say what is challenged and why. Depending on the issue, it may identify an alternative figure or ask for an item to be disallowed. We avoid repetitive formulae that add length without analysis. Related entries can be grouped where that helps the reader, provided the receiving party can still understand the case it must answer.

Preliminary Points may address matters affecting broad parts of the Bill, such as the scope of the order or a funding issue. They require particular care because a decision can have consequences across many entries. Authorities should be used for a genuine proposition, not added as decoration.

In a budgeted case, the relationship between the approved phases and the claimed costs requires analysis. The treatment of incurred and budgeted costs is not identical, and an apparent phase overspend does not answer every question. The Point should reflect the applicable approach and the reason advanced for departure or reduction.

Hourly rates are also fact-sensitive. Guideline rates are a reference point, not an automatic tariff for every case. Location, grade, complexity, specialist input and the nature of the work may be relevant. A reasoned challenge is more persuasive than a mechanical substitution.

The general period for serving Points of Dispute is short and should be checked from the notice of commencement and method of service. If more time is genuinely required, an extension should be addressed before the deadline where possible. Failure to respond may expose the paying party to a default costs certificate.

After service, the receiving party may serve Replies and the parties can negotiate. We can advise on offers, review Replies and continue through provisional assessment or an oral hearing, preserving consistency between the written Points and the position advanced later.