Qualified one way costs shifting (QOCS) meaning

Challis v Bradpiece [2024] EWHC 1124 (SCCO) What are the practical implications of this case? This appears to be the first judgment (so far as the writer is aware) to squarely consider whether qualified one-way costs shifting extends to detailed assessment proceedings. The ruling will assist claimant solicitors, who can now confidently tell clients that QOCS protection runs for the full duration of a personal injury claim. Those representing defendants are likely to be dismayed, as this removes a valuable bargaining lever, notably in matters where the principal claim was issued before the April 2023 revisions to the QOCS rules. As the hearing took place in the Supreme Court Costs Office, its precedential weight is, in most situations, persuasive rather than binding, and therefore does not rule out further challenges. Even so, the deputy costs judge undertook a comprehensive examination of the submissions and authorities, meaning that fresh, compelling grounds would probably be required to convince a court to disapply QOCS in later cases...

In this issue Road traffic accidents Highway accidents Costs Regulation of healthcare professionals Coroner’s inquests Other PI and clinical negligence updates New content LexTalk® PI & Clinical Negligence: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts LexisNexis® Webinars Useful information Road traffic accidents Non-party costs orders in credit hire claims In a pivotal judgment, Tescher v Direct Accident Management Ltd; AXA Insurance UK Plc v Spectra Drive Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 733, the Court of Appeal set out clear guidance on when credit hire providers can face adverse costs despite the usual shelter of Qualified One‑Way Costs Shifting (QOCS) in unsuccessful personal injury claims. The court concluded that, where proceedings are issued in the claimant’s name but chiefly to advance the financial interests of a credit hire company, and litigation was a foreseeable outworking of the hire agreement, non‑party costs orders (NPCOs) will often be justified. It stressed that liability...

In this issue: Key PI and clinical negligence developments Costs Employer's liability Road traffic accidents LexTalk®PI & Clinical Negligence: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts Useful information Key PI and clinical negligence developments The personal injury discount rate—a review Late in 2024, the Lord Chancellor, Shabana Mahmood MP, revealed the outcome of her five‑month review of the discount rate, first launched in July 2024. A month after the new +0.5% discount rate took effect, Thea Wilson (barrister at 12 King’s Bench Walk) assesses its influence on claims, responses from claimant and defendant representatives, and what the shift means for practitioners. See News Analysis: The personal injury discount rate—a review. Costs Qualified one-way costs shifting applied to a claim for personal injury caused by the wrongful disclosure of private information In Birley v Heritage Independent Living Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 44, the Court of Appeal determined that qualified one‑way costs...

PI & Clinical negligence horizon scanner—July 2025 [Archived] ARCHIVED: This Practice Note is archived and is not maintained. It summarises the principal legal developments relevant to personal injury and clinical negligence practitioners as at July 2025. For developments predating this horizon scanner, see PI and Clinical Negligence horizon scanning and key cases—overview. Key PI and clinical negligence developments The personal injury discount rate—a review In late 2024, the Lord Chancellor, Shabana Mahmood MP, revealed the outcome of her five‑month review of the discount rate, initiated in July 2024. One month after the new +0.5% discount rate took effect, Thea Wilson (barrister at 12 King’s Bench Walk) assesses its impact on cases, the responses from claimant and defendant representatives, and the consequences of the change for legal practitioners. See News Analysis: The personal injury discount rate—a review. MoJ announces reduction in CFO’s interest rates The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has announced lower interest rates for the Courts Funds Office’s (CFO) special and basic accounts...

ARCHIVED : This Practice Note has been archived as it pre-dates 1 April 2013 and is retained solely to aid understanding of the consultation on reforming conditional fee agreements and other elements of funding and costs in civil litigation. It covers: the Government’s response CFAs After the Event (ATE) insurance Damages-based agreements (DBAs/contingency fees) CPR 36 assessment of costs, including the new proportionality test increased hourly rates for litigants in person The consultation Following Lord Justice Jackson’s report on costs, the Ministry of Justice announced a consultation on reforming conditional fee agreements and other aspects of funding and costs in civil litigation. The consultation closed on Monday 14 February 2011. For further details, see: Reform of civil litigation funding: consultation launched (News, 16 November 2010). The Government's response The Ministry of Justice issued its response in May 2011. In broad terms, the Government accepted Jackson’s key recommendations (with some adjustment). The proposed package begins...

Fraud in personal injury claims can cover a spectrum of conduct, from overstating particular heads of damage to wholly inventing an accident and the ensuing injuries and losses. The available remedies where dishonesty is in play have been radically altered by section 57 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 (CJCA 2015). This provision can permit defendants to have otherwise meritorious claims struck out, to remove the shield of qualified one-way costs shifting (QOCS), and to invalidate a claimant’s legal expenses cover. See Practice Notes: Personal injury claims and the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 and Qualified one-way costs shifting (QOCS). Duties and responsibilities of parties and legal advisers Pleadings—CPR By virtue of CPR 16.5(2), if a defendant disputes an allegation in the particulars of claim, they must give their reasons; and where they propose a different account from the claimant’s, they must set out their own version of events. there is no strict obligation to plead fraud within the defence, but ...

For this Q&A, it is assumed that the claim continues within the Pre-Action Protocol for Low Value Personal Injury Claims in Road Traffic Accidents (the Protocol). Pre-Action Protocol for Low Value Personal Injury Claims in Road Traffic Accidents (the Protocol) Under paragraph 3.1, the Protocol’s objectives are to ensure that: the defendant meets damages and costs through the process prescribed by the Protocol, without the claimant having to issue proceedings; damages are paid within a reasonable period; and the claimant’s legal representative is paid the fixed costs at each relevant stage. Accordingly, the aims do not extend to circumstances in which a defendant may recover costs...