Civil Litigation Brief
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Copyright
  • Advertising Policy
  • Legal Disclaimer
Updates and Commentary on Civil Procedure, by Gordon Exall, Barrister, Kings Chambers, Leeds, Manchester & Birmingham. 4-5 Gray's Inn Square, London.
Browse: Home » QOCS
COST BITES 120:  QOCS AND HIRE CHARGES: DECISION THAT CLAIMANT SHOULD PAY COSTS OUTSIDE QOCS OVERTURNED ON APPEAL

COST BITES 120: QOCS AND HIRE CHARGES: DECISION THAT CLAIMANT SHOULD PAY COSTS OUTSIDE QOCS OVERTURNED ON APPEAL

November 15, 2023 · by gexall · in Appeals, Costs, Personal Injury, QOCS

In Amjad v UK Insurance Ltd [2023] EWHC 2832 (KB) Mr Justice Ritchie overturned a decision that the QOCS cap should be lifted in relation to a claimant who had failed to beat the defendant’s Part 36 offer and who…

COST BITES 107: A NON-PARTY COSTS ORDER SHOULD NOT BE MADE AGAINST A SOLICITOR REPRESENTING A CLAIM ON A CFA BASIS: SEEKING A FINANCIAL BENEFIT DID NOT MEAN THEY WERE ACTING OUTSIDE THEIR ROLE AS SOLICITOR

COST BITES 107: A NON-PARTY COSTS ORDER SHOULD NOT BE MADE AGAINST A SOLICITOR REPRESENTING A CLAIM ON A CFA BASIS: SEEKING A FINANCIAL BENEFIT DID NOT MEAN THEY WERE ACTING OUTSIDE THEIR ROLE AS SOLICITOR

October 17, 2023 · by gexall · in Appeals, Conditional Fee Agreements, Conduct, Costs, QOCS

I am grateful to Sam Hayman from Bolt Burdon Kemp for sending me a copy of the decision of Mr Justice Freedman in The Scout Association -v- Bolt Burdon Kemp [2023] EWHC 2575 (KB). On appeal Freedman J upheld the…

DEFENDANT NOT GIVEN PERMISSION TO ENFORCE COSTS IN A CASE WHERE THERE WAS A "MIXED CLAIM"

DEFENDANT NOT GIVEN PERMISSION TO ENFORCE COSTS IN A CASE WHERE THERE WAS A “MIXED CLAIM”

July 31, 2023 · by gexall · in Costs, Personal Injury, QOCS

I am grateful to Kevin Donoghue from Donoghue solicitors for bringing my attention to the judgment of Mrs Justice Hill in Afriyie v Commissioner of Police for the City of London (Re Costs) [2023] EWHC 1974 (KB). It is a…

PART 36, LATE ACCEPTANCE AND QOCS: COURT OF APPEAL DECIDE AN UNUSUAL ISSUE: A COURT CANNOT MAKE AN ORDER PROTECTING A PARTY AGAINST A POTENTIAL CHANGE IN THE RULES

PART 36, LATE ACCEPTANCE AND QOCS: COURT OF APPEAL DECIDE AN UNUSUAL ISSUE: A COURT CANNOT MAKE AN ORDER PROTECTING A PARTY AGAINST A POTENTIAL CHANGE IN THE RULES

June 29, 2023 · by gexall · in Appeals, Part 36, QOCS

In Tabbitt v Clark [2023] EWCA Civ 744 the Court of Appeal rejected an application for a declaration that would have “future proofed” the claimant’s position in relation to liability for costs following late acceptance of the defendant’s Part 36…

COST BITES 90: CLAIMANTS LIABLE TO PAY 5% OF DEFENDANT'S COSTS: HUMAN RIGHTS, PERSONAL INJURIES AND "MIXED CLAIMS"

COST BITES 90: CLAIMANTS LIABLE TO PAY 5% OF DEFENDANT’S COSTS: HUMAN RIGHTS, PERSONAL INJURIES AND “MIXED CLAIMS”

June 6, 2023 · by gexall · in Applications, Costs, Personal Injury, QOCS

In ABC & Ors v Derbyshire County Council & Ors, Re Costs [2023] EWHC 1337 (KB) Mrs Justice Hill considered the liability of the claimants to pay costs in a “mixed claim” which was, primarily, a personal injury claim.  She…

THE NEW RULES ON QOCS FROM APRIL 6th: OMNIBUS EDITION

THE NEW RULES ON QOCS FROM APRIL 6th: OMNIBUS EDITION

March 31, 2023 · by gexall · in Costs, QOCS, Rule Changes

The new rules on QOCS come into force on the 6th April.  Here is a review of the key points as to issue, the consequences and links to useful commentary.   WHEN THE RULES COME INTO FORCE The key date…

APRIL 5th IS AN IMPORTANT DATE: WHAT IS MEANT BY "ISSUED" IN THE CONTEXT OF CHANGES TO QOCS?

APRIL 5th IS AN IMPORTANT DATE: WHAT IS MEANT BY “ISSUED” IN THE CONTEXT OF CHANGES TO QOCS?

March 27, 2023 · by gexall · in Costs, QOCS, Rule Changes

The new rules relating to the ability to set off defendant’s costs liabilities against a claimant’s costs and damages have, I am told, led to a rush to issue proceedings and a backlog in some courts.  These rules come into…

THE NEW RULES ON QOCS 3: WHAT INFORMED COMMENTATORS ARE SAYING: & TWO USEFUL WEBINARS

THE NEW RULES ON QOCS 3: WHAT INFORMED COMMENTATORS ARE SAYING: & TWO USEFUL WEBINARS

February 21, 2023 · by gexall · in QOCS, Rule Changes, Webinar

In the third in this series I thought it would be useful to highlight what informed commentators are saying in relation the new rules.  I have gathered a range of views below.  I have taken some key comments, however reading…

THE NEW RULES ON QOCS 2: WHAT THEY DO AND WHEN THEY DO IT FROM...

THE NEW RULES ON QOCS 2: WHAT THEY DO AND WHEN THEY DO IT FROM…

February 16, 2023 · by gexall · in Costs, QOCS

This is the second in the series that examines the new rules as to QOCS coming into force on the 6th April 2023.  Here we look at the impact of the new rules and the date of implementation.    …

COURT OF APPEAL DECISION: DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED PERMISSION TO SET ASIDE NOTICE OF DISCONTINUANCE: DEFENDANT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO STRIKE OUT THE CLAIM

COURT OF APPEAL DECISION: DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED PERMISSION TO SET ASIDE NOTICE OF DISCONTINUANCE: DEFENDANT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO STRIKE OUT THE CLAIM

January 18, 2023 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil Procedure, QOCS

In  Excalibur & Keswick Groundworks Ltd v McDonald [2023] EWCA Civ 18 the Court of Appeal rejected the defendant’s appeal, which was an attempt to subvert the principles of Qualified One Way Costs Shifting (“QOCS”).  The claimant discontinued the action…

A COUNTERCLAIMING DEFENDANT IS NOT ENTITLED TO QOCS PROTECTION: THAT WAS NOT WHAT THE JACKSON REFORM WERE FOR...

A COUNTERCLAIMING DEFENDANT IS NOT ENTITLED TO QOCS PROTECTION: THAT WAS NOT WHAT THE JACKSON REFORM WERE FOR…

March 9, 2021 · by gexall · in Costs, Personal Injury, QOCS

I am grateful to barrister Stephen Elphick for sending me a copy of the decision of HHJ Gargan in Sutcliffe -v- Ali (County Court at Middlesbrough 15th January 2021). It is a case that deals with the issue of whether…

THE SET OFF OF COSTS AND QOCS: A HIGH COURT DECISION: THE COURT HAS A DISCRETION TO SET OFF COSTS - BUT ON THE FACTS OF THIS CASE WOULD NOT DO SO

THE SET OFF OF COSTS AND QOCS: A HIGH COURT DECISION: THE COURT HAS A DISCRETION TO SET OFF COSTS – BUT ON THE FACTS OF THIS CASE WOULD NOT DO SO

February 18, 2020 · by gexall · in Applications, Costs

In the judgment given this morning in Faulkner -v- Secretary of State for Energy and Industrial Strategy [2020] EWHC 296 (QB) Mr Justice Turner considered the issue of whether a defendant, ordered to pay costs when  failing in an application…

QOCS IN "MIXED "CASES: THE COURT OF APPEAL SPEAKS

QOCS IN “MIXED “CASES: THE COURT OF APPEAL SPEAKS

October 18, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Costs, Part 36, QOCS, Risks of litigation

In the judgment today in Brown v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis & Anor [2019] EWCA Civ 1724 the Court of Appeal considered the issue of QOCS in “mixed cases”.  The judgment requires careful reading. Generally speaking all personal…

DOES A COUNTERCLAIMING DEFENDANT HAVE THE BENEFIT OF QOCS? NOT IN THIS COURT: THERE ARE NOW TWO (CONFLICTING) JUDGMENTS ON THIS ISSUE

DOES A COUNTERCLAIMING DEFENDANT HAVE THE BENEFIT OF QOCS? NOT IN THIS COURT: THERE ARE NOW TWO (CONFLICTING) JUDGMENTS ON THIS ISSUE

November 12, 2018 · by gexall · in Applications, Costs, Personal Injury, QOCS

I am grateful to Barrister Kevin Latham for sending me details of the decision of HHJ Venn in Waring -v- McDonell [2018] EW Misc B11 (CC). A link to the full decision is also available at the foot of Kevin’s…

FULL QOCS PROTECTION DOES NOT EXTEND TO "MIXED CLAIMS": THE COURT HAS A DISCRETION: JUDGMENT ON APPEAL

FULL QOCS PROTECTION DOES NOT EXTEND TO “MIXED CLAIMS”: THE COURT HAS A DISCRETION: JUDGMENT ON APPEAL

July 31, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Costs, QOCS

In  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v Brown [2018] EWHC 2046 (Admin) Mrs Justice Whipple held that a claim against the police for misuse of data, misfeasance in public office and misuse of private information, did not give rise…

APPEALS, QOCS AND SET OFF: MORE ON THE DECISION IN CARTWRIGHT -V- VENDUCT: COURT OF APPEAL ALLOWED SET OFF OF APPEAL COSTS

APPEALS, QOCS AND SET OFF: MORE ON THE DECISION IN CARTWRIGHT -V- VENDUCT: COURT OF APPEAL ALLOWED SET OFF OF APPEAL COSTS

July 18, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Costs, QOCS

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 [2018] EWCA Civ 1654, the court of Appeal decision on QOCS considered yesterday.  This is a point on…

TOMLIN ORDER PREVENTS "SUCCESSFUL" DEFENDANT RECOVERING COSTS FROM CLAIMANT'S DAMAGES IN A QOCS CASE: BUT CHOOSE YOUR DEFENDANTS CAREFULLY

TOMLIN ORDER PREVENTS “SUCCESSFUL” DEFENDANT RECOVERING COSTS FROM CLAIMANT’S DAMAGES IN A QOCS CASE: BUT CHOOSE YOUR DEFENDANTS CAREFULLY

July 17, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Costs, QOCS, Risks of litigation

In Cartwright v Venduct Engineering Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 1654 the Court of Appeal considered issues relating to the recoverability of costs in multi-defendant cases where the claimant would normally have the protection of qualified one-way costs shifting.   The case provides…

QOCS IN HYBRID CASES: CLAIMANT NOT ENTITLED TO FULL EXTENT OF QOCS PROTECTION: ORDERED TO PAY 25% OF THE COSTS

QOCS IN HYBRID CASES: CLAIMANT NOT ENTITLED TO FULL EXTENT OF QOCS PROTECTION: ORDERED TO PAY 25% OF THE COSTS

March 16, 2018 · by gexall · in Costs

In  the judgment today in Siddiqui v University of Oxford [2018] EWHC 536 (QB) Mr Justice Foskett considered an issue as to costs where the claim brought was partially a personal injury claim.   The judge held that the claim, for…

FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY ESTABLISHED ON APPEAL: WHEN A CLAIMANT DIGS A BIG HOLE FOR THEMSELVES THE COURT SHOULD NOT STRUGGLE TO EXTRACT THEM

FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY ESTABLISHED ON APPEAL: WHEN A CLAIMANT DIGS A BIG HOLE FOR THEMSELVES THE COURT SHOULD NOT STRUGGLE TO EXTRACT THEM

January 22, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Damages, Fundamental Dishonesty, Personal Injury

In  London Organising Committee of the Olympic And Paralympic Games (LOCOG) v Sinfield [2018] EWHC 51 (QB) Mr Justice Julian Knowles overturned a decision whereby a claimant was allowed damages.  The claimant had been fundamentally dishonest in making a claim for…

ALLEGING AND FINDING FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY, PLEADING AND EVIDENCE: COURT OF APPEAL JUDGMENT TODAY

ALLEGING AND FINDING FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY, PLEADING AND EVIDENCE: COURT OF APPEAL JUDGMENT TODAY

October 30, 2017 · by gexall · in Abuse of Process, Appeals, QOCS, Statements of Case

I am grateful to barrister Tom Vonberg  for sending me a copy of the Court of Appeal decision today in Howlett -v- Ageas [2017] EWCA Civ 1696.  Howlett & anr v Davies & anr- jt Final-1. Tom acted for the…

1 2 Next →

Copyright

© Gordon Exall, Civil Litigation Brief, 2013-2023. Unauthorised use and or duplication of the material contained on this blog without permission from this blog's author is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Gordon Exall and Civil Litigation Brief with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 32.7K other subscribers

Recent Posts

  • THIS MAY (OR MAY NOT) BE THE FINAL CLAIM FORM CASE OF 2023: CLAIMANT MAKES FUNDAMENTAL MISTAKE AS TO SERVICE, DEFENDANTS FAIL TO NOTICE IN TIME: THERE IS MUCH TO LEARN HERE…
  • CLAIMANTS’ SOLICITORS WERE ON NOTICE THAT AN EXPERT’S REPORTS COULD NOT BE RELIED UPON: THE ISSUE OF PROCEEDINGS WAS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS
  • WEBINAR ON CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE COSTS: KING CHAMBERS EVENT: 7th DECEMBER 2023
  • COST BITES 125:JOCKEYING FOR POSITION: ALLEGATIONS OF CONDUCT INCREASING COSTS – BUT THERE WAS NO DEDUCTION FROM SUCCESSFUL PARTY’S COSTS:
  • NEW YEAR NEW HOURLY RATES: INDEXED LINK UPLIFT OF RATES FROM 1st JANUARY 2024: SEE THEM HERE

Top Posts & Pages

  • CLAIMANTS' SOLICITORS WERE ON NOTICE THAT AN EXPERT'S REPORTS COULD NOT BE RELIED UPON: THE ISSUE OF PROCEEDINGS WAS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS
  • THIS MAY (OR MAY NOT) BE THE FINAL CLAIM FORM CASE OF 2023: CLAIMANT MAKES FUNDAMENTAL MISTAKE AS TO SERVICE, DEFENDANTS FAIL TO NOTICE IN TIME: THERE IS MUCH TO LEARN HERE...
  • NEW YEAR NEW HOURLY RATES: INDEXED LINK UPLIFT OF RATES FROM 1st JANUARY 2024: SEE THEM HERE
  • COST BITES 125:JOCKEYING FOR POSITION: ALLEGATIONS OF CONDUCT INCREASING COSTS - BUT THERE WAS NO DEDUCTION FROM SUCCESSFUL PARTY'S COSTS:
  • GRIFFITHS -v- TUI: SUPREME COURT FINDS FOR THE CLAIMANT: THE TRIAL WAS UNFAIR: POINTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN PUT TO THE EXPERT

Blogroll

  • Coronavirus: Guidance for lawyers and businesses
  • Fatal Accident Law
  • Personal injury: Liability and Damages

Books

  • Munkman & Exall on Damages for Personal Injuries and Death 14th ed
  • The APIL Guide to Fatal Accidents 4th edition

Useful Links

  • Kings Chambers
  • Kings Chambers Costs & Litigation Funding
  • Kings Chambers Serious Injury
  • The Civil Procedure Rules
  • The National Archives Recently Published Judgments
  • The Senior Court Costs Office Guide 2023
  • Website of 4 – 5 Gray's Inn Square
  • www.Bailii.org

Archives

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

Copyright © 2023 Civil Litigation Brief

Powered by WordPress and Origin

 

Loading Comments...