The Court Retains Jurisdiction To Hear Part 23 Applications In Provisional Assessment Proceedings, But Will Ordinarily Decline To Exercise It

, , ,

The County Court at Derby’s decision in Maidens v Building Supplies Distribution Limited [2026] EWCC 25 addresses whether the court should entertain interim applications before provisional assessment is conducted.

Background

The underlying claim in Maidens v Building Supplies Distribution Limited [2026] EWCC 25 was a personal injury matter which settled for £43,000 on a Part 36 basis. Following settlement, the Claimant’s costs lawyers served a bill of costs in the sum of £56,460, together with notice of commencement, on 19 February 2025. The Defendant served Points of Dispute on 5 June 2025, and the Claimant served Replies on 26 July 2025. The matter fell within the provisional assessment regime under CPR Part 47, and was transferred to District Judge Davies sitting as Regional Costs Judge at the County Court at Derby from the County Court at Lincoln.

The Defendant’s Points of Dispute were accompanied by an itemised Excel spreadsheet, appended with the intention of rendering the Points of Dispute compliant with the requirements identified in Ainsworth. The Claimant’s Replies took issue with the use of that spreadsheet, contending that it could not properly be relied upon at provisional assessment. The Replies also raised more routine objections concerning the adequacy of Ainsworth particularisation in relation to specific points, including Points 7, 15 and 20.

The Defendant subsequently brought an interim application under Part 23, seeking a declaration that the Points of Dispute were compliant with CPR PD 47 paragraph 8.2, and also seeking to strike out those parts of the Replies which asserted non-compliance with Ainsworth. That application was adjourned and came before District Judge Davies on 15 April 2026, with Mr A Hood (solicitor) of Carter Burnett appearing for the Claimant and Mr P Hughes (counsel) instructed by Kennedys Law appearing for the Defendant, both attending remotely by Cloud Video Platform.

By the time of the hearing, the factual and procedural landscape had narrowed. The Claimant conceded the admissibility of the Excel spreadsheet for the purposes identified in Ainsworth, with the result that the majority of the Replies on the spreadsheet issue fell away, save for the Replies to Points 7, 15 and 20. The Claimant indicated that Amended Points of Reply would be filed and served to reflect that concession.

Costs Issues Before the Court

The application raised two distinct issues for determination. The first was a jurisdictional question: whether the Court had any power to entertain a Part 23 interim application within the provisional assessment regime at all. The Claimant’s position was that no such jurisdiction existed, relying on PD 47 paragraph 14.2(2), which excludes paragraph 13.7 of PD 47 from the provisional assessment process. Paragraph 13.7 would otherwise permit applications under Part 23 in the context of detailed assessment proceedings. The Claimant argued that, absent an express provision permitting such applications, the provisional assessment regime was a self-contained process which did not accommodate preliminary or interim applications of this kind.

The second issue, which arose only if the Court found that jurisdiction existed, was whether it should exercise its discretion to determine the remaining Ainsworth compliance disputes in relation to Points 7, 15 and 20 in advance of the provisional assessment on the papers. The Defendant invited the Court to resolve those issues there and then. The Claimant resisted that course, arguing that Ainsworth compliance is a qualitative matter for the judge conducting the provisional assessment, and that determining such issues in advance would fetter the discretion of the assessing judge and interfere with the streamlined nature of the regime.

A further, subsidiary point arose as to whether the application, or its continued pursuit following the concession on the Excel spreadsheet, amounted to an abuse of process.

The Parties’ Positions

The Claimant’s position was, in the first instance, that the Court simply had no jurisdiction to hear the application. Reliance was placed on PD 47 paragraph 14.2(2), which disapplies paragraph 13.7 within the provisional assessment regime. It was submitted that this exclusion reflected a deliberate policy choice: the provisional assessment process is streamlined and self-contained, and the mechanism for challenging the outcome is an oral review following assessment on the papers. There is, on this analysis, no room for Part 23 applications within that process save where expressly provided for. If the Defendant wished to litigate preliminary issues of this kind, the appropriate course was to apply to remove the matter from the provisional assessment regime and seek a full detailed assessment under CPR 47.15(6).

On that basis, the Claimant submitted that the application was an abuse of process and should be dismissed on that ground alone. In the alternative, if the Court found that jurisdiction existed, it was submitted that the remaining Ainsworth disputes in relation to Points 7, 15 and 20 were matters of evaluation and degree, properly to be addressed by the judge conducting the provisional assessment when considering the individual entries in the bill. It was further submitted that, in any event, alternative submissions and concessions were already contained within the Replies, such that the provisional assessment could proceed on the papers without any preliminary determination. Mr Hood also submitted that the Defendant was, in substance, seeking to censor the Claimant’s criticisms of the Points of Dispute, and that entertaining the application would set an undesirable precedent by encouraging parties to litigate costs disputes by instalments.

The Defendant’s position was that the Court did have jurisdiction to hear the application, notwithstanding the exclusion of paragraph 13.7. Mr Hughes submitted that the exclusion of that paragraph did not operate as a blanket prohibition on all applications; rather, the Court retained its general case management powers under CPR 3.1(2)(k) and (m), which remained available regardless of the assessment regime in play. The provisional assessment regime governed the method of assessment but did not strip the Court of its inherent case management jurisdiction to deal with discrete procedural issues. On the substantive question, the Defendant sought a declaration of compliance with PD 47 paragraph 8.2 and a strike-out of the non-compliant parts of the Replies. Mr Hughes invited the Court to resolve the remaining Ainsworth issues on the basis that the parties were before the Court.

The Court’s Decision

District Judge Davies accepted the Defendant’s submissions on jurisdiction. The exclusion of PD 47 paragraph 13.7 within the provisional assessment regime did not, in the judge’s view, operate as a prohibition on applications as such. The Court’s general case management powers under CPR 3.1(2)(k) and (m) remained available, and the provisional assessment regime governed the method of assessment rather than removing the Court’s broader procedural jurisdiction.

However, the judge declined to exercise that jurisdiction. The application was dismissed on the basis that it was not appropriate, as a matter of discretion, to determine the remaining issues in advance of the provisional assessment. The judge’s reasoning was rooted in the purpose and design of the provisional assessment regime, which was introduced following the recommendations of Sir Rupert Jackson to provide a proportionate and self-contained mechanism for resolving lower-value costs disputes, and to avoid the proliferation of interim hearings and associated expense that had previously characterised detailed assessment proceedings.

The regime proceeds on the basis that disputes as to quantum, reasonableness and proportionality are to be addressed through Points of Dispute and Replies, with the assessing judge well placed to deal with issues concerning the presentation and substance of those documents. The judge held that the Court should approach applications to intervene prior to formal provisional assessment with caution, since permitting such applications risks undermining the very purpose of the regime. The existence of jurisdiction did not mean that it should be exercised.

The Claimant’s concession on the admissibility of the Excel spreadsheet was significant. What remained were specific Ainsworth disputes in relation to Points 7, 15 and 20. Those issues, insofar as they concerned the level of detail or the merits of individual items, were matters for the judge conducting the provisional assessment. The Defendant sought, in substance, to pre-empt that evaluative exercise, which was precisely what the provisional assessment regime was designed to avoid. In light of the spreadsheet concession, there was a structured mechanism available (namely, the provisional assessment process itself) to resolve the remaining issues, and there was no demonstrated necessity for the Court to intervene at that stage.

The judge declined Mr Hughes’s invitation to determine the remaining Ainsworth issues, stating that he declined to do so as a matter of principle. Costs had already been incurred on the application, and they were not insignificant. It was not inevitable that there would be an oral review. The Court was required to have regard to the need to deal with cases at proportionate cost, which applied with particular force in costs litigation.

To entertain the application in circumstances where the dispute was suitable for provisional assessment, particularly in light of the concession made, would set an unwelcome precedent. It would encourage parties to bring interim challenges routinely, seeking to litigate issues by instalments which the rules intend to be resolved in a single, streamlined process. That would undermine the provisional assessment regime, increase costs disproportionately, and place additional burdens on court resources. That would not be consistent with the overriding objective.

The judge added for completeness that he was not persuaded that the application when mooted crossed the line into an abuse of process in the strict sense, given that he had accepted Mr Hughes’s submissions on jurisdiction. The issue over admissibility of the Excel spreadsheet schedule was not plainly unarguable when foreshadowed in correspondence, but its continued pursuit following the concession (before the application was issued, as Mr Hood pointed out) as to admissibility of the Excel spreadsheet schedule rendered it disproportionate.

The Claimant’s costs lawyers were directed to file Amended Points of Reply to reflect the Excel spreadsheet concession by 4.00 p.m. on 6 May 2026, and to re-file the N258 in the County Court at Derby by 4.00 p.m. on 27 May 2026. The Defendant’s application was dismissed. The Defendant was ordered to pay the Claimant’s costs of the application, summarily assessed at £11,220.00, to be paid by 4.00 p.m. on 6 May 2026.

YouTube player

 

Points Of Dispute In Solicitor And Client Assessments | The Court Of Appeal Speaks

CPR 47 PD 8.2 | Points Of Dispute, Be Specific

Ainsworth Applied | Preliminary Points Struck Out for Lack of Particularity

Ainsworth Applies To Inter Partes Detailed Assessment, Samsung Does Not

The Scope Of An Appeal From Provisional Assessment

Costs Of Assessment Where Bill Reduced To Under £75,000

 

Provisional Assessment Set Aside Under CPR 3.1(7) For Material Breach Of Filing Duty

, , , ,

The Senior Courts Costs Office’s decision in MH v CH (By Her Litigation Friend the Official Solicitor) [2026] EWHC 238 (SCCO) confirms that CPR 3.1(7) remains available to challenge a Provisional Assessment Order where the receiving party failed to file the paying party’s complete Points of Dispute.

Background

This matter arose from detailed assessment proceedings following a costs order made in the Court of Protection. By an order dated 15 December 2023, HHJ Hilder ordered MH to pay 50% of CH’s costs. CH’s solicitors, Irwin Mitchell LLP, prepared a Bill of Costs totalling £19,233.93, which was served on MH on 1 November 2024.

On 22 November 2024, MH served his Points of Dispute by email. These comprised four documents: Precedent G; a Note in Relation to Points of Dispute; an annotated Bill of Costs; and a skeleton argument from a prior Court of Appeal application. Replies were served by CH on 13 December 2024.

On 15 April 2025, CH lodged the N258 bundle with the court to initiate a provisional assessment. It was later accepted by CH’s solicitor, Mr Cruise, in a witness statement dated 21 May 2025, that the bundle omitted two of the four documents comprising MH’s Points of Dispute — the annotated Bill of Costs and the Note — and also omitted MH’s open offer. Mr Cruise conceded the omission was a mistake and that all documents should have been filed.

Unaware of the omission, Deputy Costs Judge Bedford conducted the provisional assessment on 29 April 2025. The resulting Written Reasons repeatedly noted an inability to understand many of the objections. The judge later attributed this difficulty entirely to the absence of the complete documentation. The Provisional Assessment Order (PA Order) was issued the same day.

On 6 May 2025 — within seven days of the PA Order — MH issued an application to set aside the PA Order pursuant to CPR 3.1(7). MH declined to request an oral hearing under CPR 47.15(7). The application was heard on 24 June 2025. During that hearing a discrete question arose as to whether a provisional assessment order is final or interim prior to expiry of the 21-day period in CPR 47.15(7); the judge adjourned to receive written submissions on that point. Written submissions were filed by CH on 23 July 2025 and by MH on 28 July 2025, culminating in this judgment.

Costs Issues Before the Court

The central issue was whether a paying party may apply to set aside a Provisional Assessment Order under CPR 3.1(7) within seven days of its issue, as an alternative to requesting an oral hearing under CPR 47.15(7). Counsel informed the judge that there was no binding authority — indeed no authority at all — on this point, and the judge determined that a written judgment would therefore be of utility. Subsidiary questions included: whether the court’s general case management powers remain available where a specific procedural rule exists; whether the failure to file a complete set of Points of Dispute meant the decision was not a provisional assessment in the sense contemplated by CPR 47.15(7); and, if CPR 3.1(7) was engaged, whether the threshold test was met. The application also raised, but adjourned for later determination, issues of alleged misconduct under CPR 44.11 and whether a prior payment constituted a concluded agreement on costs.

The Parties’ Positions

MH, acting in person, argued the PA Order was null and void because CH had failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of PD 47 para 14.3 by not filing his full Points of Dispute and open offer with the N258 bundle. He submitted CPR 3.1(7) was available and drew analogies with other CPR set-aside mechanisms — including the power to set aside a default costs certificate under CPR 47.12(1) — to support the proposition that the rules provide redress where an order is obtained irregularly. MH contended that CPR 47.15(7) was not engaged because the provisional assessment process had never been properly initiated.

CH, represented by Mr Moss of Counsel, argued that the specific and self-contained code for challenging a provisional assessment was CPR 47.15(7), which required a request for an oral hearing within 21 days. MH’s failure to do so meant the PA Order had become binding. CH submitted that the general power in CPR 3.1(7) could not circumvent this specific rule, relying on the principle of lex specialis and the authorities of Terry v BCS Corporate Acceptances Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 2422 and Deutsche Bank AG v Unitech Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ 119. In the alternative, CH argued that even if CPR 3.1(7) was available, the PA Order was a final order, the threshold was not met, and the circumstances fell woefully short of exceptional.

The Court’s Decision

Deputy Costs Judge Bedford granted the application and set aside the PA Order.

Availability of CPR 3.1(7)

The judge rejected the submission that CPR 47.15(7) ousted the general case management powers. She held that the two rules could operate cohesively, addressing different types of challenge. CPR 47.15(7) provides a mechanism to review items within a provisional assessment — decisions on hourly rates, individual bill items and the like. These items are defined by the four corners of the Points of Dispute, as illuminated by Ainsworth v Stewarts Law LLP [2020] EWCA Civ and PD 47 para 8.2. A jurisdictional challenge to whether the assessment was correctly constituted at all falls outside the scope of CPR 47.15(7) and may be addressed under CPR 3.1(7). She noted that CPR 3.1(1) expressly provides that the court’s case management powers are available in addition to those granted by specific rules, and that PD 47 para 14.2(2) — which lists the CPR provisions excluded from the provisional assessment regime — does not exclude CPR 3.1.

The authorities of Terry and Deutsche Bank were distinguished on the same ground: each confirmed that a general rule gives way to a specific rule, but that principle has no application where the two rules address distinct questions and operate in tandem.

Failure to File Complete Documents

The judge found that CH’s failure to file the complete Points of Dispute was a material breach of the mandatory obligation in PD 47 para 14.3(e). Critically, the provisional assessment is initiated unilaterally by the receiving party and the paying party has no involvement or control over what is filed. She drew an analogy to the duty of candour in without-notice applications: the duty on the receiving party to file all documents comprising the paying party’s Points of Dispute is stringent. She observed that Points of Dispute spread across multiple documents — including annotated bills and supplementary notes — are the norm rather than the exception in costs practice.

Because PD 47 para 14.3(e) had not been complied with, the resulting decision was not a provisional assessment in the sense contemplated by CPR 47.15(7). The consecutive steps in the workflow from CPR 47.15(4) onwards — including the 21-day period for requesting an oral hearing — were not properly engaged. The time for requesting a compliant oral hearing under CPR 47.15(7) and (8) had not properly begun to run.

Application of the CPR 3.1(7) Test

Applying the principles in Tibbles v SIG PLC [2012] EWCA Civ 518, and having regard to Lewison LJ’s observations in Vodafone Group PLC v IPCom GmbH and Co [2023] EWCA Civ 113, the judge found the threshold for exercising CPR 3.1(7) was met. The facts on which the PA Order was made had been misstated through omission — an incontrovertible fact accepted by CH’s own solicitor. The absence of the documents had axiomatically undermined the basis of the judgment, and the application was made promptly within seven days.

The judge declined to determine whether the PA Order was final or interim, finding it unnecessary to do so. The facts comfortably met the higher test of exceptional circumstances applicable to final orders in any event: the receiving party had failed to comply with a mandatory filing requirement in a without-notice context, the court had proceeded on an incorrect basis and wasted time on a flawed process, and a defaulting party ought not to benefit from its own default where the court has been inadvertently misled and a prompt in-time application has been made. For completeness, the judge further held that even if CPR 47.15(7) had been engaged, the same facts constituted exceptional circumstances within the meaning of that rule.

Case Management Directions

She exercised the power under CPR 47.15(6) to remove the matter from the provisional assessment regime, directing that it proceed to a one-day detailed assessment hearing. She concluded that an oral hearing was likely to be required in any event and it was more proportionate to proceed directly. All outstanding issues — including the CPR 44.11 misconduct application and the question of any concluded costs agreement — were adjourned to that hearing.

YouTube player

When A Judicial Review Claim Is Discontinued | Can The Defendant Recover Costs Beyond The Acknowledgment Of Service Stage?

Part 36 Offers Cannot Displace The Solicitors Act One-Fifth Costs Rule

CPR 26.9(10)(e) | Wrongful Interference With Goods Against Police Mandates Multi-Track Allocation | Part 36 Acceptance Does Not Oust Fixed Costs

Does Removal As Trustee Always Mean Loss Of Indemnity?

Inadequate Estimate Fails To Establish Special Circumstances Under s70(3) Where Client Would Have Made The Same Choices

Unless Order Stands | Defendants Fail To Evidence Impecuniosity After Non-Payment Of Interim Costs

YouTube player

Summary Assessment Without Opposition | Court Applies Independent Scrutiny to Unopposed Costs Claims

When A Judicial Review Claim Is Discontinued | Can The Defendant Recover Costs Beyond The Acknowledgment Of Service Stage?

Part 36 Offers Cannot Displace The Solicitors Act One-Fifth Costs Rule

CPR 26.9(10)(e) | Wrongful Interference With Goods Against Police Mandates Multi-Track Allocation | Part 36 Acceptance Does Not Oust Fixed Costs

Does Removal As Trustee Always Mean Loss Of Indemnity?

Inadequate Estimate Fails To Establish Special Circumstances Under s70(3) Where Client Would Have Made The Same Choices

Permission Refused To Appeal A Seven Year Old Final Costs Certificate

, , , ,

In Choudhury v Mukherjee [2024] EWHC 1153 (SCCO), the court dismissed the Defendant’s application for an extension of time to appeal a Final Costs Certificate issued seven years earlier. The court found that the lengthy delay was serious with no good reason and that, in any event, there is no right to appeal a provisional assessment per PME v Scout Association. The Defendant’s grounds of appeal, including allegations that the Final Costs Certificate was obtained unlawfully and that service of the Notice of Commencement and Bill of Costs was invalid, were found to be “between weak and non-existent.”

Read more

Costs Of Assessment Where Bill Reduced To Under £75,000

, , ,

“I agree with the Claimant that rule 47.15 is self-contained in the sense it does not say what the Defendant wants it to say, namely that if a bill is brought in for assessment at over £75,000 but is allowed at less than that figure, it means that it was obviously exaggerated, so provisional assessment costs must apply.  On the contrary, the rule says no such thing, in circumstances where it would have been open to the rule makers to provide that where a bill was reduced under £75,000, the receiving party would only be entitled to provisional assessment costs rather than, as here, to detailed assessment costs.”

Read more

The Scope Of An Appeal From Provisional Assessment

, , ,

Dismissing this appeal against a decision of Master Leonard in the SCCO Mr Justice Stewart held that pursuant to CPR 47.24, the scope of an appeal against decisions made in the course of a provisional assessment is limited to a re-hearing only of any specific decisions which had been challenged at an oral hearing. In other words, if it hasn’t first been challenged at an oral hearing pursuant to CPR 47.15(7), it cannot be appealed.

Read more

Supreme Court: Provisional assessment

, , , , ,

Where a Paying Party does not file Points of Dispute, a Provisional Assessment will be conducted.
In the Supreme Court a Provisional Assessment will also be carried out where one of the parties requests such an assessment or where the costs claimed are £75,000 or less. A Provisional Assessment will also be carried out in the Supreme Court in cases involving public funding, except where a Legal Aid provider requests a hearing or where the size or complexity of the Bill requires a Detailed Assessment hearing.

Read more

Provisional assessment of bills not exceeding £75,000: Provisional assessment generally

, ,
Read more