header-logo header-logo

NLJ this week: QOCS reform creates ‘perilous’ situation for claimants

21 April 2023
Issue: 8021 / Categories: Legal News , Costs , Personal injury , Damages , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail
119231
The recent change to QOCS (qualified one-way costs shifting) may have tipped the balance in favour of defendants, Samuel Hayman, partner, and Tom Jenkinson, senior associate solicitor, Bolt Burdon Kemp, write in this week’s NLJ.

Hayman and Jenkinson explain the background to the QOCS change, which came into force on 6 April, and what it means for claimants and defendants. They argue the reforms are a step too far and increase the risks for claimants beyond what can be considered acceptable.

The reason for introducing QOCS in the first place was to protect claimants from the potential financial blight of costs orders, after the Jackson reforms abolished recoverability of after-the-event insurance premiums.

The April reforms, however, create ‘a perilous situation for claimants in facing liabilities for defendants’ costs, completely against Sir Rupert Jackson’s reforms,’ Hayman and Jenkinson write. ‘The imbalance of power underlying this situation cannot be ignored.’ 

See the latest on QOCS here.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll