21 April 2023 / Samuel Hayman , Tom Jenkinson

Issue: 8021 / Categories: Features , Personal injury , Costs , Procedure & practice , Damages

Claimants & QOCS: caught in a trap?

Have the changes to the qualified one-way costs shifting regime tipped the scales too far in favour of defendants? Samuel Hayman & Tom Jenkinson examine the perilous new situation for claimants

Changes to QOCS rules from 6 April 2023 mean there will be an increased risk of adverse costs for claimants in personal injury litigation.
The rules won’t be enforceable for cases initiated prior to 6 April 2023.
It seems the new rules only benefit claimants where the claim is discontinued and there are no damages or costs at all.

The qualified one-way costs shifting (QOCS) regime for cases issued prior to 6 April 2023 was clarified in two key cases: Cartwright v Venduct Engineering Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 1654, [2018] All ER (D) 99 (Jul) and Ho v Adelekun [2021] UKSC 43, [2021] All ER (D) 17 (Oct).

These cases meant that costs orders in a defendant’s favour are unenforceable, unless there are ‘damages ordered’ in the context of CPR 44.14—essentially

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

Claimants & QOCS: caught in a trap?

Have the changes to the qualified one-way costs shifting regime tipped the scales too far in favour of defendants? Samuel Hayman & Tom Jenkinson examine the perilous new situation for claimants

Changes to QOCS rules from 6 April 2023 mean there will be an increased risk of adverse costs for claimants in personal injury litigation.
The rules won’t be enforceable for cases initiated prior to 6 April 2023.
It seems the new rules only benefit claimants where the claim is discontinued and there are no damages or costs at all.

These cases meant that costs orders in a defendant’s favour are unenforceable, unless there are ‘damages ordered’ in the context of CPR 44.14—essentially

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

SourceURL:

Links:

E-newsletter Sign-Up

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS

Read All

NLJ this week: Policing the safeguards when appointing trust corporations

What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection?

NLJ this week: What the court considers when assessing refusal of ADR

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?

NLJ this week: Finding innovative ways to fund the justice gap

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

NLJ this week: Two’s company, but three’s a crowd in financial provision cases

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

Charities Appeals Supplement: March 2026

NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue

Error message

Claimants & QOCS: caught in a trap?

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean