header-logo header-logo

08 February 2023
Issue: 8012 / Categories: Legal News , Costs , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail

QOCS protection weakened

Lawyers have expressed dismay at a legislative change that reverses Ho v Adelekun on costs recovery under the qualified one-way costs shifting (QOCS) scheme, allowing the defendant to recover more costs from settlements as well as damages.

For proceedings issued after 6 April, the QOCS scheme will offer less protection as defendants will be able to recover costs from settlements as well as damages, and from deemed orders and agreements to pay damages as well as orders. Currently, defendants cannot recover costs against a Part 36 settlement or Tomlin order.

The change was made by way of statutory instrument. Under the Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2023, SI 2023/105, passed last week, courts will be allowed ‘in cases falling within the scope of the qualified one-way costs regime to order that the parties’ costs liabilities be set-off against each other, Ho v Adelekun [2021] UKSC 43 having previously found that this rule, properly construed, did not allow the court to do so’. Defendants will be able to set off costs against deemed orders and agreements to pay damages or costs, ‘so to allow the off-setting of costs orders made in favour of a defendant and ensure that offers made under Part 36, and, for example, settlements concluded by way of a Tomlin Order, come within the rule’.

The rule change also reverses Cartwright v Venduct Engineering [2018] EWCA Civ 1654.

Sam Hayman, head of costs at Bolt Burdon Kemp, who acted as the costs lawyer in the Ho v Adelekun costs litigation, said: ‘This is a perilously dangerous situation for claimants—they now either face massive liabilities to their solicitors or law firms will face huge additional risks in representing claimants who rightly deserve access to justice.

‘The inherent imbalance of power underlying this situation cannot be ignored, particularly where my firm represents so many people who have been injured by State actors.’

Issue: 8012 / Categories: Legal News , Costs , Procedure & practice
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Construction team bolstered by hire of senior consultant duo

Switalskis—four appointments

Switalskis—four appointments

Firm expands residential conveyancing team with quadruple appointment

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

Private client team welcomes senior associatein Worcester

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