Points of Dispute Struck Out Due To Wholesale Non-Compliance

CHRISTODOULIDES V CP CHRISTOU LLP [2025] EWHC 214 (SCCO)

Deputy Costs Judge Roy KC strikes out the claimant’s non-compliant Points of Dispute challenging her former solicitors’ costs bill of £132,000, finding the 32-page document was prolix, unfocused, and prevented a fair assessment, while simultaneously rejecting the claimant’s allegations of misconduct as an impermissible attempt to re-litigate previously determined issues.

The purpose of points of dispute is really to prevent that work being done on the hoof in the course of a hearing. The solicitors are entitled to know specifically which items are challenged and the reasons for the challenge. As pleaded, the points of dispute do not raise a proper challenge which can be answered without a considerable amount of preparation in advance.

Citations

Ainsworth v Stewarts Law LLP [2020] EWCA Civ 178; [2020] 1 WLR 2664 Points of dispute in detailed assessments must identify specific items being challenged and provide concise, clear reasons for objections. All entries disputed must explain whether no time should be allowed, reduced time is sought, or the work should have been done by a different grade of fee earner. Barton v Wright Hassall LLP [2018] UKSC 12; [2018] 1 WLR 1119 Being a litigant in person does not justify a lower standard of compliance with procedural rules. Non-compliance without reasonable justification is not excusable, and rules must be consistently applied to ensure fairness between represented and unrepresented parties. Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd v Zodiac Seats UK Ltd [2013] UKSC 46; [2014] AC 160 The doctrines of issue estoppel and the rule in Henderson v Henderson preclude the re-litigation of matters that have already been dealt with or could have been raised in prior proceedings. Gempride Ltd v Bamrah [2018] EWCA Civ 1367; [2019] 1 WLR 1545 CPR 44.11 permits the court to disallow costs on a punitive basis for misconduct. The reduction need not be linked to specific items within the bill and can be broad in scope to address improper behaviour by a party. Andrews v Retro Computers Ltd [2019] 1 WLUK 237 Misconduct under CPR 44.11 ordinarily applies only to conduct arising during the detailed assessment process unless explicitly reserved at the costs order stage. Allegations stemming from the substantive litigation are generally outside the scope of the assessment unless specifically reserved. Manzanilla Ltd v Corton Property and Investments Ltd, Court of Appeal, 23 April 1997 The ability to impose sanctions such as wasted costs should be employed sparingly. The process must remain proportionate, avoiding wasteful litigation on matters requiring detailed fact investigation, except in exceptional cases. Gentry v Miller [2016] EWCA Civ 141; [2016] 1 WLR 2696 Raising serious allegations does not excuse failure to comply with procedural rules. Allegations must be clearly and precisely identified to enable the accused party to respond fairly. PME v The Scout Association [2019] EWHC 3421 (QB); [2020] 1 WLR 1217 Procedural non-compliance undermines the fairness of detailed assessments. The overriding objective necessitates proper preparation to avoid a “free-for-all” at the hearing. R (Hysaj) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWCA Civ 1633; [2015] 1 WLR The courts may make allowances for litigants in person regarding case management; however, compliance with procedural rules remains essential to maintain fairness and avoid imbalances between parties. O’Sullivan v Holmes and Hills LLP [2023] EWHC 508 (KB) Challenges to costs in solicitor-client assessments must address individual entries with particularised objections to enable a fair response and ensure efficient court proceedings.

Track allocation housing disrepair CPR 46.13 settlement sum costs restriction SCCO

MRO fee markup cap 25% detailed assessment personal injury Senior Courts Costs Office

Security for costs refused CPR 25.27 very high probability success excessive estimate King's Bench

IPEC scale costs transfer Patents Court PD 30 para 9.2 costs caps Court of Appeal

Costs budget variation CPR 3.15A promptness significant development unfair prejudice Chancery Division

Costs budgeting inter partes proportionality high hourly rates AI disclosure Patents Court CPR 3E

Beneficiary personal liability section 71(3) Solicitors Act 1974 indemnity costs VAT self-supply SCCO

Summary assessment indemnity costs unless order payment on account disclosure default Chancery Division

Provisional assessment set aside CPR 3.1(7) points of dispute filing duty PD 47 para 14.3 SCCO

Fixed recoverable costs police claims CPR 26.9(10)(e) intentional tort exemption

Key Points

Practice Direction 47 requires Points of Dispute (PoDs) to be clear, concise, and focused, identifying specific items of dispute along with the nature and grounds of the challenge. Failure to comply with these requirements can result in the PoDs being struck out. [26, 35-37, 39]
Generalised or vague objections that fail to align with the structure of Precedent G or do not reference specific items in the bill of costs are non-compliant and cannot form the basis of a legitimate challenge. [26, 35, 37-39]
CPR 44.11 allows the court to disallow or reduce costs for misconduct, provided the misconduct occurs in connection with the assessment proceedings. However, this power is not typically exercised to address conduct in the substantive litigation unless specifically reserved by the court’s order. [46-53]

Attempts to re-litigate or revisit matters already determined in the substantive claim or through appeal processes are precluded by the doctrines of issue estoppel and the rule in Henderson v Henderson. Such attempts may also be deemed an abuse of process. [49-50, 55-56]
The overriding objective and principles of proportionality require that costs assessments do not descend into wasteful satellite litigation. The court will not allow detailed and disproportionate investigations into allegations that are unlikely to materially affect the costs claimed. [60-61]

The PoDs could scarcely be less compliant: they are the antithesis of short, to the point, and focused. They are prolix, discursive, and unfocused. They for the most part consist of a scattershot litany of allegations of misconduct and the like, which have little if anything to do with the reasonableness of the first defendant’s costs.

Key Findings In The Case

The claimant’s Points of Dispute (PoDs) were held to be non-compliant with Practice Direction 47 because they were prolix, unfocused, failed to identify specific items in the bill of costs, and did not follow the structure of Precedent G. This rendered them effectively incomprehensible and unsuitable for a fair and proportionate costs assessment. [26, 35-39]
The claimant’s allegations regarding discrepancies in trial transcripts and breach of privilege were found to be either already decided in the substantive claim or permission to appeal stages, or should have been raised earlier. The doctrines of issue estoppel and Henderson v Henderson precluded these issues from being revisited. [49-50, 55-56]
The court refused to permit the claimant to rely on CPR 44.11 arguments to reduce costs based on alleged misconduct in connection with the substantive litigation. This was because no reservation to address such conduct was made in the costs order, and the alleged misconduct would require disproportionate investigations unrelated to specific items in the bill. [46, 51-53, 60-61]

The claimant failed to articulate any arguable case of misconduct in support of her CPR 44.11 arguments. For example, her allegations of altered transcripts lacked evidence of materiality, relevance, or causation with respect to the first defendant’s costs. Additionally, her allegations of breach of privilege were unsupported by legal or factual justification. [61-67]
The judge determined that the claimant had disregarded the rules governing costs assessments, maintained an irrational focus on irrelevant points, and had ample opportunity to address deficiencies in her PoDs but failed to do so. This conduct was inconsistent with the procedural requirements and the overriding objective. [40-43, 65]

The PoDs completely fail to identify the items in dispute and do not articulate what reductions in costs are sought or why. Their prolix, unfocused, and scattershot nature—with allegations of misconduct largely irrelevant to the reasonableness of costs—renders them non-compliant with PD 47.8.2, making it impossible to conduct a fair and proportionate assessment.

Background

This complex legal costs judgment stems from a multifaceted professional negligence dispute involving Niki Christodoulides and her former legal representatives, CP Christou LLP. The origins of the case can be traced back to four original claims between the claimant and her sister, two of which were ultimately decided against Christodoulides, with trial judges making uncompromising findings of dishonesty.

Following these initial proceedings, Christodoulides brought a professional negligence claim against CP Christou LLP and a second defendant (her former counsel). This claim was heard before Knowles J over two days in December 2022, resulting in a comprehensive 73-page, 250-paragraph judgment delivered on 13 June 2023.

Knowles J comprehensively dismissed the professional negligence claim on multiple grounds. Specifically, he found that the Particulars of Claim disclosed no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim, possessed no reasonable prospects of success, and constituted an abuse of process. The judge was particularly critical of the pleading, describing it as incoherent and impossible to follow.

The judgment highlighted several key procedural issues, including the claimant’s attempt to challenge the accuracy of trial transcripts from previous proceedings. Knowles J explicitly noted the confusion surrounding these transcripts and chose not to delve into their details, instead relying on the original trial judges’ findings.

When Christodoulides sought permission to appeal, Stuart-Smith LJ comprehensively rejected her arguments, particularly regarding the transcript allegations. The appeal judge emphasised that the claimant had failed to identify any material inaccuracies that could have influenced the original proceedings’ outcomes.

Costs Issues Before the Court

The primary costs issue before Deputy Costs Judge Roy was the assessment of CP Christou LLP’s costs bill, which totalled approximately £132,000. The central preliminary point concerned the compliance of the claimant’s Points of Dispute (PoDs), which the defendant argued were so defective that they should be struck out entirely.

The Parties’ Positions

The first defendant (CP Christou LLP) argued that the claimant’s Points of Dispute were fundamentally non-compliant with Practice Direction 47.8.2, which mandates that Points of Dispute must be short, focused, and clearly identify specific points of challenge. Counsel for CP Christou LLP submitted that the 32-page document was prolix, discursive, and failed to identify any specific bill items or provide comprehensible challenges to the costs claimed.

The claimant, acting in person, presented various allegations of misconduct, including claims about transcript inaccuracies and alleged breaches of legal privilege. However, she did not effectively address the core procedural issues regarding the Points of Dispute’s non-compliance.

The Court’s Decision

Deputy Costs Judge Roy KC comprehensively rejected the claimant’s approach. While acknowledging a few marginally compliant points, the judge found that the Points of Dispute were fundamentally non-compliant with legal requirements. Applying the principles established in Ainsworth v Stewarts Law LLP, the court held that the document was so defective that it prevented a fair and proportionate assessment of costs.

The judge was particularly critical of the claimant’s attempts to resurrect allegations already rejected in previous proceedings, describing her approach as an abuse of process. The misconduct allegations were dismissed as immaterial, imprecise, and incapable of meaningful investigation within the costs assessment framework.

Ultimately, the court struck out most of the Points of Dispute, leaving only a few minor points to be assessed. The judgment serves as a stark reminder of the importance of procedural compliance and the need for clear, focused challenges in costs proceedings.

Specialist costs services across the UK

TMC Legal provides expert costs drafting, negotiaton and costs budgeting services together with representation in detailed assessment hearings. Our experienced costs lawyers and law costs draftsmen act nationwide. Contact us today.