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

Myers & Co—Jen Goodwin

Myers & Co—Jen Goodwin

Head of corporate promoted to director

Boies Schiller Flexner—Lindsay Reimschussel

Boies Schiller Flexner—Lindsay Reimschussel

Firm strengthens international arbitration team with key London hire

Corker Binning—Priya Dave

Corker Binning—Priya Dave

FCA contentious financial regulation lawyer joins the team as of counsel

NEWS
Social media giants should face tortious liability for the psychological harms their platforms inflict, argues Harry Lambert of Outer Temple Chambers in this week’s NLJ
The Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024—once heralded as a breakthrough—has instead plunged leaseholders into confusion, warns Shabnam Ali-Khan of Russell-Cooke in this week’s NLJ
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has now confirmed that offering a disabled employee a trial period in an alternative role can itself be a 'reasonable adjustment' under the Equality Act 2010: in this week's NLJ, Charles Pigott of Mills & Reeve analyses the evolving case law
Caroline Shea KC and Richard Miller of Falcon Chambers examine the growing judicial focus on 'cynical breach' in restrictive covenant cases, in this week's issue of NLJ
Ian Gascoigne of LexisNexis dissects the uneasy balance between open justice and confidentiality in England’s civil courts, in this week's NLJ. From public hearings to super-injunctions, he identifies five tiers of privacy—from fully open proceedings to entirely secret ones—showing how a patchwork of exceptions has evolved without clear design
back-to-top-scroll