header-logo header-logo

QOCS protection weakened

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

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll