2 Responses
Comments are closed.
Subscribe to Blog via Email
Join 35.2K other subscribers
Recent Posts
- WITNESS STATEMENTS: GUIDANCE FOR THOSE WHO TAKE THEM AND THOSE WHO SUPERVISE THEM: WEBINAR 15th OCTOBER 2025
- SERVICE POINTS 13: IS A CLAIMANT SAVED BY THE FACT THAT THE DEFENDANT DID NOT FILE AN ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF SERVICE OR MAKE AN APPLICATION UNDER CPR 11? THE COURT OF APPEAL HAVE A VIEW…
- SERVICE POINTS 12: ANOTHER CLAIMANT COMES TO GRIEF IN THE COURT OF APPEAL: CPR 7.6 APPLIED AND NOT 3.9 (THE CLAIMANT COULD HAVE GOOGLED THIS)
- MAZUR MATTERS 11: WHAT IS MEANT BY “THE CONDUCT OF LITIGATION” 2: WHEN SOMEBODY BREACHED THE ACT AND WAS IN CONTEMPT OF COURT BY ARRANGING FOR THE SERVICE OF PLEADINGS
- EXPERT WATCH 17: A DETAILED CONSIDERATION BY THE HIGH COURT OF WHEN EXPERT EVIDENCE IS PERMITTED OR “REASONABLY REQUIRED”: COMPLIANCE WITH THE RULES IS VERY IMPORTANT HERE
Top Posts
- MAZUR MATTERS 11: WHAT IS MEANT BY "THE CONDUCT OF LITIGATION" 2: WHEN SOMEBODY BREACHED THE ACT AND WAS IN CONTEMPT OF COURT BY ARRANGING FOR THE SERVICE OF PLEADINGS
- EXPERT WATCH 17: A DETAILED CONSIDERATION BY THE HIGH COURT OF WHEN EXPERT EVIDENCE IS PERMITTED OR "REASONABLY REQUIRED": COMPLIANCE WITH THE RULES IS VERY IMPORTANT HERE
- SERVICE POINTS 12: ANOTHER CLAIMANT COMES TO GRIEF IN THE COURT OF APPEAL: CPR 7.6 APPLIED AND NOT 3.9 (THE CLAIMANT COULD HAVE GOOGLED THIS)
- SERVICE POINTS 13: IS A CLAIMANT SAVED BY THE FACT THAT THE DEFENDANT DID NOT FILE AN ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF SERVICE OR MAKE AN APPLICATION UNDER CPR 11? THE COURT OF APPEAL HAVE A VIEW...
- WITNESS STATEMENTS: GUIDANCE FOR THOSE WHO TAKE THEM AND THOSE WHO SUPERVISE THEM: WEBINAR 15th OCTOBER 2025
Archives
Blogroll
Books
Useful Links
Copyright
© Gordon Exall, Exall Legal Training, Civil Litigation Brief, 2013-2025.
Unauthorised use and or duplication of the material contained on this blog without permission is strictly prohibited.
Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
I don’t understand this. At paragraph 6 of the judgment the Judge says:
“It was on 16th July 2016 that the defendant sought to set aside the notices of discontinuance and asked for the claims to be struck out, after a finding that the claims were fundamentally dishonest, and asked for the claimants to pay the defendant’s costs of the application.
If the claimants had been found to be fundamentally dishonest why were they still entitled to QOCS protection?
It seems to be a very unjust outcome, and I hope the insurers appeal.
I think you have misread the report. The defendant applied for an order that the claimants were fundamentally dishonest but did not succeed. If the defendant had succeeded then the QOCS protection would not have applied. It is because the defendant failed in the application that it had to pay the claimants’ costs.