header-logo header-logo

17 February 2023
Issue: 8013 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Civil way , CPR , Costs
printer mail-detail

Civil way: 17 February 2023

QOCS changes; jumping financial remedy queue; suing the state; Fast Track costs on small claim; life after Tate Modern; new FPR amendments.

LOTSAQOCS

The Supreme Court’s decision in Ho v Adelekun [2021] UKSC 43, [2021] All ER (D) 17 (Oct) could have looked counterintuitive and unfair. The justices said that, not me. I wouldn’t dare. It addressed the conundrum which arose in a qualified one-way costs shifting (QOCS) case over set-offs where the claimant was awarded damages and there were opposing costs orders. It was decided that the defendant who had an order for costs in their favour could not offset them against both the claimant’s damages and interest and a costs order in the claimant’s favour (perhaps made on an unsuccessful interim application to strike out). The offset was limited to the damages and interest. Amendments to CPR 44 to be brought into force on 6 April 2023 by the Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2023, SI 2023/105, and only applying to proceedings issued on or after that date, are aimed

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

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll