header-logo header-logo

26 July 2016 / Iain Stark
Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Costs , Budgeting
printer mail-detail

Imbalance or access to justice?

Iain Stark discusses qualified one-way costs shifting

  • Qualified one-way costs shifting (QOCS), is a protective bubble against an adverse costs liability for failed claims brought by personal injury claimants, but it can be burst by a finding of fundamental dishonesty.

This test of fundamental dishonesty was first considered by His Honour Judge Maloney in Gosling v (1) Hailo (2) Screwfix Direct (Cambridge CC, 2014, [2014] Lexis Citation 316). He said it was to be interpreted “purposively and contextually” to establish whether the claimant was “deserving” of costs protection. On the facts, the dishonesty was so obvious that it was not necessary to have the claimant cross-examined. Interestingly, Maloney HHJ held that where dishonesty was crucial to around half of the total claim, that was sufficient to warrant the characterisation of “fundamentally dishonest”.

Maloney HHJ stated: “A claimant should not be exposed to costs liability merely because he is shown to have been dishonest as to some collateral matter or perhaps as to some minor, self contained head of damage.

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

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll