header-logo header-logo

Imbalance or access to justice?

26 July 2016 / Iain Stark
Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Costs , Budgeting
printer mail-detail

Iain Stark discusses qualified one-way costs shifting

  • Qualified one-way costs shifting (QOCS), is a protective bubble against an adverse costs liability for failed claims brought by personal injury claimants, but it can be burst by a finding of fundamental dishonesty.

This test of fundamental dishonesty was first considered by His Honour Judge Maloney in Gosling v (1) Hailo (2) Screwfix Direct (Cambridge CC, 2014, [2014] Lexis Citation 316). He said it was to be interpreted “purposively and contextually” to establish whether the claimant was “deserving” of costs protection. On the facts, the dishonesty was so obvious that it was not necessary to have the claimant cross-examined. Interestingly, Maloney HHJ held that where dishonesty was crucial to around half of the total claim, that was sufficient to warrant the characterisation of “fundamentally dishonest”.

Maloney HHJ stated: “A claimant should not be exposed to costs liability merely because he is shown to have been dishonest as to some collateral matter or perhaps

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

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
A Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruling has reopened debate on the availability of ‘user damages’ in competition claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Edward Nyman of Hausfeld explains how the CAT allowed Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen’s alternative damages case against Meta to proceed, rejecting arguments that such damages are barred in competition law
back-to-top-scroll