header-logo header-logo

18 October 2016 / Kerry Underwood
Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Costs , Budgeting
printer mail-detail

One direction

Kerry Underwood examines qualified one-way costs shifting

  • Qualified one-way costs shifting only applies to personal injury work.
  • Under QOCS a losing personal injury claimant does not have to pay costs, but a winning claimant recovers costs as usual from the defendant, hence the “one way”.

Qualified one-way costs shifting (QOCS) was introduced as part of the Jackson Reforms in April 2013 and the relevant rules are CPR 44.12 (set-off) and 44.13 to 44.17 (QOCS).

QOCS applies only to personal injury work, but it applies to all such work whatever its value and whatever type of work and thus for example a clinical negligence case of £2m is covered by QOCS.

Under QOCS a losing personal injury claimant does not have to pay costs, but a winning claimant recovers costs as usual from the defendant, hence the “one way”.

Rationale

The rationale was that such a scheme would make after-the-event (ATE) insurance unnecessary. The collective benefit to defendants—generally insurance companies in such cases in reality—is

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

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

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