header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
23 October 2014 / Meghann McTague
Issue: 7627 / Categories: Features , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

Beware the Jabber-QOCS!

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
mctyre

Meghann McTague issues a particular warning to defendants in cross-border claims

In August 2014, the Court of Appeal considered a number of questions relating to both the validity and scope of the qualified one-way costs shifting system (QOCS) at CPR 44.13 to 44.17 (Wagenaar v Weekend Travel Ltd t/a Ski Weekend [2014] EWCA Civ 1105, [2014] All ER (D) 24 (Aug)).

Background

Six months on from the commencement of the new regime following Lord Justice Jackson’s wide-reaching reforms, practitioners are acutely aware of the costs consequences for those claims in which there is not a pre-commencement funding arrangement in place.

QOCS was introduced as part of the package of reforms, including the removal of the recovery of ATE premiums and success fees from unsuccessful defendants, inter alia. The quid pro quo for claimants making personal injury claims was that, subject to a number of exceptions (CPR 44.15), they would not be exposed to a costs risk (beyond any damages awarded to them) in the event that they were unsuccessful; albeit the

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll