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

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
back-to-top-scroll