APPEALS, QOCS AND SET OFF: MORE ON THE DECISION IN CARTWRIGHT -V- VENDUCT: COURT OF APPEAL ALLOWED SET OFF OF APPEAL COSTS
I am grateful to Gary Brankin and Jeremy Rae of BC Legal for providing more information about the decision in Cartwright v Venduct Engineering Ltd  EWCA Civ 1654, the court of Appeal decision on QOCS considered yesterday. This is a point on the costs of the appeal that is not apparent from the judgment itself.
Since the post was first written I was kindly sent a copy of the supplementary judgment by Jeremy Rea, also of BC Legal. A copy of the judgment is available
COSTS OF THE APPEAL
BC Legal informs me that when the issue of the costs of the appeal came up the Court of Appeal endorsed the approach in Howe -v- MIB No 2 (CA 6th July 2017). It allowed the defendant to offset the costs it should have received following discontinuance against the costs they were ordered to pay in respect of the appeal. It is worthwhile looking at the decision of the Court of Appeal on costs in the Howe case.
THE DECISION IN HOWE -V- MIB (NO 2)
In the substantive appeal in Howe the claimant succeeded in establishing that his action against the Motor Insurers Bureau was covered by QOCS. In a later judgment the Court of Appeal considered whether the MIB should be allowed to set off the costs of the appeal against the costs of the main action that they could not recover because of the operation of QOCS.
The Court of Appeal held that CPR 44.12 gave the court a discretion to order a set-off of costs and that, on the facts of that case the costs orders in his favour should be set off against costs orders existing in favour of the MIB. The Court of Appeal in the Howe case held