18 October 2016 / Kerry Underwood

Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Costs , Budgeting

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

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

SourceURL:

Links:

E-newsletter Sign-Up

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

Daniel Burbeary, office managing partner of Michelman Robinson, discusses launching in London, the power of the law, and what the kitchen can teach us about litigating

Wedlake Bell—Rebecca Christie

Firm welcomes partner with specialist expertise in family and art law

Birketts—Álvaro Aznar

Dual-qualified partner joins international private client team

NEWS

Read All

NLJ this week: Driving test fraudsters steer towards jail

Cheating in driving tests is surging—and courts are responding firmly. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort Law School charts a rise in impersonation and tech-assisted fraud, with 2,844 attempts recorded in a year

NLJ this week: Deepfakes demand data law muscle

As AI-generated ‘deepfake’ images proliferate, the law may already have the tools to respond. In NLJ this week, Jon Belcher of Excello Law argues that such images amount to personal data processing under UK GDPR

NLJ this week: 40% penalty for coercive control

In a striking financial remedies ruling, the High Court cut a wife’s award by 40% for coercive and controlling behaviour. Writing in NLJ this week, Chris Bryden and Nicole Wallace of 4 King’s Bench Walk analyse LP v MP [2025] EWFC 473

NLJ this week: Mbappé row spotlights ‘ethics bonuses’

A €60.9m award to Kylian Mbappé has refocused attention on football’s controversial ‘ethics bonus’ clauses. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Estelle Ivanova of Valloni Attorneys at Law examines how such provisions sit within French labour law

NLJ this week: Appeal court reins in ‘wrong defendant’ switcheroo

The Court of Appeal has slammed the brakes on claimants trying to swap defendants after limitation has expired. In Adcamp LLP v Office Properties and BDB Pitmans v Lee [2026] EWCA Civ 50, it overturned High Court rulings that had allowed substitutions under s 35(6)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980, reports Sarah Crowther of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ

Error message

One direction

Rationale

Rationale

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

Wedlake Bell—Rebecca Christie

Birketts—Álvaro Aznar