Our Mr Fisher recently pursuaded a local District Judge to strike out a dispute which did not comply with Practice Direction 35 supplementing CPR Rule 47.9.
It is not uncommon for Defendant ‘costs negotiators’ to simply raise broad-brush ‘cut and paste’ disputes which do not state concisely the nature and grounds for the dispute, contrary to the requirement of the Practice Direction.
The Defendant attempted to rely on Precedent G but the experienced District Judge agreed that Precedent G for points of dispute does not abrogate paying parties from their responsbility of setting out clear disputes to items of work. Paying parties must put their cards on the table if they wish to avoid costs penalties at detailed assessment.
The Defendant subsequently appealed the decision of the District Judge. However, we are pleased to say that the appeal was dismissed by His Honour Judge Gregory.
Unlike many large costs negotiating firms, Forest Costing recommend and prepare full points of dispute which comply fully with the Practice Direction. In our experience this is the best way to protect your position and to avoid criticism from the Judge on assessment.
Remember, Rule 47.14(7) confirms that Judicial intervention on assessment should generally be limited to items specified in the points of dispute. A failure to raise an objection in your PODs could leave you silenced! 