header-logo header-logo

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

Imbalance or access to justice?

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

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Construction team bolstered by hire of senior consultant duo

Switalskis—four appointments

Switalskis—four appointments

Firm expands residential conveyancing team with quadruple appointment

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

Private client team welcomes senior associatein Worcester

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