header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
17 March 2023 / Vijay Ganapathy
Issue: 8017 / Categories: Features , Personal injury , Costs , Damages
printer mail-detail

Personal injury update: 17 March 2023

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
114797
Vijay Ganapathy reflects on the pros and cons of QOCS reform, and highlights developments in the courts on whiplash claims and unsafe exposure
  • The reform of the qualified one-way costs shifting (QOCS) rules has extended the scope of costs recovery for defendants.
  • A recent case has provided reassurance on non-tariff injuries in mixed injury cases.
  • The court has also dealt with the scope of an employer’s duty in a case involving historic asbestos exposure.

Following the last update (‘Personal injury: lessons from 2022’, 172 NLJ 8006, pp11-12), the courts have handed down judgments in cases involving some important issues. In addition, a topic that is occupying many practitioners’ minds presently is the reform of the qualified one-way costs shifting (QOCS) rules which come into effect on 6 April 2023.

Changing the QOCS

As mentioned in the previous update, some of the main aims of QOCS were to deal with litigation costs which Lord Jackson considered were ‘disproportionate’ and to encourage access to justice for claimants.

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

Read All
Sponsored by
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll