header-logo header-logo

Inequality, unfairness & QOCS

13 October 2021
Issue: 7952 / Categories: Legal News , Procedure & practice , Costs
printer mail-detail
A defendant lawyer has called for an urgent review of the QOCS rules, following a Supreme Court decision on when a personal injury claimant must pay a defendant’s costs

Unanimously allowing the appeal in Ho v Adelekun [2021] UKSC 43, the court clarified the extent of Qualified One-way Costs Shifting (QOCS)―a mechanism for addressing the inequality of arms in most personal injury cases. The case originally involved a road traffic accident, and spiralled into a dispute about set-off of opposing costs orders. The judgment confirmed that Part 44 of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) dealing with QOCS do not prevent set-off of opposing costs orders but do impose a monetary cap if defendant costs exceed the claimant’s damages and interest (unless there was fundamental dishonesty).

Acknowledging that QOCS could lead to unfairness, Lady Rose and Lord Briggs said, in their judgment: ‘No one has claimed that the QOCS scheme is perfect.’

The QOCS rules were initially proposed by Sir Rupert Jackson in his civil costs review in 2009, and came into force in 2013.

However, Matthew Hoe, partner at Taylor Rose MW, who acted for the defendant, said the decision contained ‘two particularly alarming things for personal injury defendants, insurers and compensators’.

‘The first is the approach to the construction of the CPR,’ he said.

‘The second is the likely effect on litigation and the costs of defending claims. The decision means, essentially, unless there is an order for damages or a finding of fundamental dishonesty, a claimant will not have to pay a successful defendant’s costs.’

Hoe, a Forum of Insurance Lawyers committee member, said: ‘Reaching the decision by focusing only on the words of the QOCS rules and not wider usages in the CPR will make the outcome of future cases about the CPR harder to predict.

‘Concerningly, it paves the way for claimants pursuing bad points―as the claimant had originally done in Adelekun―forcing defendants to incur costs the claimant will not have to pay, perhaps thereby applying improper pressure to settle. An urgent review of the QOCS rules by the Civil Procedure Rule Committee is required to ensure the intended checks and balances operate.’

Issue: 7952 / Categories: Legal News , Procedure & practice , Costs
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll