0370 270 6000

QOCS - what you need to know

14 January 2016

Qualified one way costs shifting (QOCS) is where a successful defendant cannot recover their costs from the losing claimant, expect in a selection of very precise circumstances.  It applies to all personal injury cases post April 2013, unless the Claimant has /had a pre-April 2013 CFA/ATE in place. 

On the face of it this seems extremely unfair however, there was a balance. What Defendants have lost in recovering costs on cases they win they have saved with the abolition of recoverable additional liabilities they would have paid on the cases they lost. 

Some of this has now been tested, but questions remain… 

The case of Arabella Wagenar v Weekend Travel Limited & Anor [2014] WLR(D) 389 started the ball rolling by providing clarification that QOCS applied retrospectively.  Therefore, if a personal injury claim has been pursed from before April 2013 without a CFA or ATE Premium – i.e. such as one funded by a policy of LEI – then QOCS will apply. 

While this decision was disappointing from a Defendant’s perspective, there was some light at the end of the tunnel as Wagenar also provided clarification as to the type of proceedings QOCS applied to. The meaning of proceedings under the CPR was held to be a single claim against a defendant or defendants which included a claim for damages for personal injuries. It did not apply to Part 20 Claims, nor did it apply to claims in which no element of personal injury attached (e.g. credit hire/damage to property etc.).

By July however things had taken a turn for the worse. In the case of Julie Casseldine v Diocese of Llandaff Board for Social Responsibility (a charity) (2015) DJ Phillips sitting in his capacity as the Regional Costs Judge concluded that in a case where a pre-April 2013 CFA had ceased and a post April 2013 CFA had been entered into (albeit with different Solicitors) that the Claimant would enjoy the benefit of QOCS. This decision was, to extent, in contrast to the 2014 decision of Master Haworth in Landau v Big Bus Company Ltd LTL 2014 who held that a Claimant who entered into a pre-April 2013 CFA style agreement would not get the benefit of QOCS protection under a second CFA which was entered into for the purpose of an Appeal.

Of course, neither decision is binding, and this is clearly not the end of the figure.

Outside of the above, QOCS does not apply where:

  1. The case is struck out on the grounds that:
    • there was no good reason to bring it
    • it is an abuse of process
    • the conduct of the claimant (or their legal representatives) is likely to obstruct the just disposal of the proceedings.
  2. The case was fundamentally dishonest.
  3. The claimant fails to beat a defendant's Part 36 offer.

The first two points are relatively straightforward, and with the right submissions the court should not have difficulty in making the right order. The third point is slightly trickier – there is no guidance on what is meant by conduct. Is this throughout the life of the case? Is it if the case is struck out for non-compliance? All these points are still open to argument. 

Further, the CPR is yet to provide a definition of ‘fundamentally dishonest’ (although it is generally considered to be fraud). It was tested to some extent in Michael Gosling v (1) Hallo (2) Screwfix Direct 29 March 2014 (Cambridge County Court) wherein the claimant had allegedly fallen from a ladder and seriously injured his knee however, surveillance evidence showed him shopping without a crutch despite what he had told the experts. The claimant discontinued against the second defendant, who applied to enforce their costs. The Court found that the Claimant had advanced a claim which was ‘fundamentally dishonest’ and the Defendant was at liberty to enforce their costs in full.

This was supported to some extent in Creech v Severn Valley Railway (unreported, 25 March 2015) with the judge ultimately concluded that the accident simply could have happened as alleged (or at all) and ordered the claimant to pay costs to the defendant to the tune of £11,000.

In an honest claim, QOCS can be beaten by Part 36. If a claimant refuses a defendant’s Part 36 offer and fails to better it, then they are at risk of paying the defendant’s costs from 21 days after the offer is made – capped at the level of damages the claimant recovers. 

This highlights the need for a well-placed Part 36 offer being made by the defendant at an early stage in the proceedings.

Training and events


VCOD and healthcare workers – Getting ready to meet the requirement Microsoft Teams

We invite you to an interactive webinar looking at the key legal and practical implications for healthcare employers arising from the NHS England VCOD Guidance issued on 14 January 2020 and actions required in Phase 2 implementation stage.

View event


Mental Health and Court of Protection Legal Update webinar Microsoft Teams

There have been some interesting recent legal developments in this area and topics to covered include the Mental Health Act & MHA White Paper, the Court of Protection (Mental Capacity Act and LPS) and human rights.

View event

Focus on...

Legal updates

Shared Insights: Safeguarding Forum - Safe discharge and conveyance of patients

It is important to bear in mind the legal framework when planning discharge and conveyance plans but practicalities are also key.


Published articles

Care Quality Commission Strategy from 2021 – Ground for Optimism but Much Still to Learn

There is much still to learn about how the strategy will be implemented and those details will play a huge part in determining the final outcome. However, there are grounds for optimism.


Compulsory vaccinations for frontline healthcare workers: Getting ready to meet the requirement

An on-demand webinar for HR practitioners, looking at the legal and practical implications for NHS employers of the Government’s decision to mandate COVID-19 vaccination for frontline healthcare workers.


Care Business Briefing - Deal activity dynamics in the healthcare sector

Join Browne Jacobson and Virgin Money for an on-demand webinar as they discussed their thoughts on the outlook for acquisition activity and funding in the health and care sectors.


The content on this page is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.

Mailing list sign up

Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up