header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us

Claimants & QOCS: caught in a trap?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
21 April 2023 / Samuel Hayman , Tom Jenkinson
Issue: 8021 / Categories: Features , Personal injury , Costs , Procedure & practice , Damages
printer mail-detail
119231
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

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Red Lion Chambers—Maurice MacSweeney

Red Lion Chambers—Maurice MacSweeney

Set creates new client and business development role amid growth

Kingsley Napley—Tim Lowles

Kingsley Napley—Tim Lowles

Sports disputes practice launchedwith partner appointment

mfg Solicitors—Tom Evans

mfg Solicitors—Tom Evans

Tax and succession planning offering expands with returning partner

NEWS
Read All
Who’s on the 2026 silk list?
The rank of King’s Counsel (KC) has been awarded to 96 barristers, and no solicitors, in the latest silk round
NLJ this week: When your brain signs the contract
Neurotechnology is poised to transform contract law—and unsettle it. Writing in NLJ this week, Harry Lambert, barrister at Outer Temple Chambers and founder of the Centre for Neurotechnology & Law, and Dr Michelle Sharpe, barrister at the Victorian Bar, explore how brain–computer interfaces could both prove and undermine consent
NLJ this week: Comparators—how close is close enough?
Comparators remain the fault line of discrimination law. In this week's NLJ, Anjali Malik, partner at Bellevue Law, and Mukhtiar Singh, barrister at Doughty Street Chambers, review a bumper year of appellate guidance clarifying how tribunals should approach ‘actual’ and ‘evidential’ comparators. A new six-stage framework stresses a simple starting point: identify the treatment first
NLJ this week: Domicile—more than where you live
In cross-border divorces, domicile can decide everything. In NLJ this week, Jennifer Headon, legal director and head of international family, Isobel Inkley, solicitor, and Fiona Collins, trainee solicitor, all at Birketts LLP, unpack a Court of Appeal ruling that re-centres nuance in jurisdiction disputes. The court held that once a domicile of choice is established, the burden lies on the party asserting its loss
NLJ this week: Arbitration’s fast lane—with guardrails
Early determination is no longer a novelty in arbitration. In NLJ this week, Gustavo Moser, arbitration specialist lawyer at Lexis+, charts the global embrace of summary disposal powers, now embedded in the Arbitration Act 1996 and mirrored worldwide. Tribunals may swiftly dismiss claims with ‘no real prospect of succeeding’, but only if fairness is preserved
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll