QOCS, STRIKING OUT AND THE LIABILITY TO PAY IN FULL: A COUNTY COURT DECISION

2 Responses

1. 

   gexall · August 18, 2015 at 10:57:07 · →

   Reblogged this on Fatal Accident Law.

2. 

   Jonathan Dingle · August 18, 2015 at 18:01:20 · →

   I had an interesting discussion with a recently retired costs master on the subject of QOWCS during a costs course I was running – the question was should a solicitor ensure that a LF insures a child’s claim where there might, but probably would not be, a risk of strike out on the question of liability or conduct, for example where the LF who is impecunious, ceases to cooperate?

   The area, in short, is a minefield – RCJ Lumb handed down the sensible decision recently which prevented routine recovery of child ATE policies, yet here, thanks Colm, the real risk is exposed. Yet how can a child or the LF be protected if ATE premiums are not recoverable?

   Does anyone else sense that we are seeing, across every aspect of civil procedure, a real malaise arising through incoherent attempts to impose general rules inspired by a reformer who has never actually argued the CPR as a practitioner and a politician, late lamented out of office, who was in hoc to the one sectional interest?

   There is a need for urgent review of the rules across the board because they now have the quality of the last days of the RSC in early 1999. They are a code of little sense which has inspired satellite litigation through costs budgets and a real inequality of arms.

Comments are closed.