- within Litigation and Mediation & Arbitration topic(s)
- with Finance and Tax Executives
- with readers working within the Aerospace & Defence, Insurance and Transport industries
The Court reaffirmed that premature challenges risk undermining the efficiency and purpose of the provisional assessment regime.
Maidens v Building Supplies Distribution Ltd [2026] EWCC 25 (15 April 2026)
In Maidens, the Court was tasked in considering an issue as to compliance with Ainsworth v Stewarts Law LLP (2020), in particular, whether an itemised spreadsheet attached to points of Dispute would be compliant with this decision. The Defendant proceeded to make an application to determine the Ainsworth issues at a preliminary hearing prior to the Provisional Assessment, the Defendant was seeking a declaration that the Points of Dispute were compliant with CPR PD47 paragraph 8.2.
District Judge Davies in the Derby County Court ruled that although the court does have discretion to deal with any pre-Provisional Assessment applications, the Court *should approach applications to intervene prior to formal provisional assessment with caution. District Judge Davies went on to state that, The rationale for this would be to allow such applications risks undermining the very purpose of the provisional assessment regime.’ Therefore, dealing with such applications would hinder the provisional assessment process and ‘would set an unwelcome precedent. It was ruled that the Defendant was seeking to pre-empt the evaluative exercise conducted by the judge at the provisional assessment hearing, which is exactly what the provisional assessment process was created to prevent.
The provisional assessment was purposedly created to provide ‘a self-contained and proportionate mechanism for resolving lower-value costs disputes. If the courts began dealing with these applications, it would weaken the whole provisional assessment process, result in disproportionate increased costs and place further burdens on already strained court resources, none of which are consistent with the overriding objective. The Court dismissed the Defendant’s application and awarded the Claimant costs of the application in the sum of £11,220.00, which is over six times the Provisional Assessment cap, again exhibiting the Court’s reasoning to discourage future applications of this nature.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
[View Source]