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

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll