0370 270 6000

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012

6 September 2013
Implementation of Part 2

In a written ministerial statement yesterday, Jonathan Djanogly clarified the shape of the rules that will be put in place to support the civil costs reforms under the Legal Aid Punishment of Offenders Act (LASPO), which are due to come into effect next April.

Qualified one way costs shifting will protect personal injury claimants from adverse costs orders (a decision has still to be taken as to whether this will extend to ‘mixed’ claims such as credit hire claims arising from an road traffic accident (RTA) where there is also an element of injury). Under these rules, defendants will rarely recover their costs of the action. The trade off for defendants will be that they will no longer have to bear after the event (ATE) premiums.

The scheme was to be ‘qualified’ in the sense that there would be some exceptions. However, it now seems these will be very limited.

In his report on civil costs, Sir Rupert Jackson proposed an exception for the conspicuously wealthy. The result was a debate as to what amounts to conspicuous wealth, with the higher tax band being considered as a possible cut off, for a time. A financial limit has now been abandoned: there will be no means testing.

Conduct was another area which was considered as a matter which may justify a departure from one way costs shifting. The difficulty here was in identifying the level of misconduct required to remove protection. Clearly a claimant who simply lost their case should not be penalised or the regime would not be one way costs shifting. Djanogly has confirmed that the claimant who discontinues will also retain protection. This must be right, as claimants who discover their claims are weak at a late stage should not be penalised for discontinuing promptly.

The problem which remains is how to deal with the prospect of ‘have a go’ claimants. The possibility of a ‘minimal’ payment from an unsuccessful claimant, which might have prevented dubious claims, has been abandoned. Instead, costs protection will be lost where a claim is either fraudulent, on a balance of probabilities, or has been struck out as disclosing no cause of action, or for being an abuse of process.

The strike out qualification will capture a very small number of claims. It seems that not only must the claim be struck out but the Court will also be required to make a finding of abuse of process or that the claim discloses no cause of action. In injury claims, such findings are rare, and it seems any claimant could circumvent the rule by discontinuing on receiving a strike out application. Alternatively, the rules may give rise to satellite litigation as defendants push for a finding of, for example, abuse of process.

The fraud exception poses a similar risk of satellite litigation, while also raising questions over the necessary standard of proof. While a fraud defence to a civil claim is determined on the balance of probabilities, the seriousness of the allegation is such that in practice a judge will typically require something more than evidence of 51% likelihood before making a finding of fraud. It is likely the same approach will be taken in relation to costs.

Part 36 and qualified one way costs shifting (QOCS) also posed difficult questions as to whether a defendant should be able to protect their position by making strong early offers. Under the current regime, a defendant who makes strong Part 36 and goes on to secure a more favorable settlement of judgment may recover their costs from 21 after the Part 36 offer was made. The Government has confirmed that this will continue under QOCS – ie Part 36 will ‘trump’ QOCS . However, the defendant’s costs recovery will be limited to the level of the claimant’s damages, meaning that a claimant should not be left out of pocket, though he may be left with no damages.

The government and rules committee may need to give some further thought to the costs aspect of the interaction of Part 36 and QOCS . Depending on the terms of their conditional fee agreement (CFA), claimants may be left out of pocket if they are required to pay their own solicitors some costs over and above those that are recovered. Currently any such liability could be met using damages.

The prospect of overriding QOCS should act as a strong incentive for defendants to make early offers and for claimants to accept, where they are reasonable. However, Part 36 is also to be bolstered in relation to claimant offers, with claimants to recover a 10% uplift on damages where they better their own offer. For non-pecuniary claims, the 10% uplift will be calculated on claimant costs. Under both regimes there will be a sliding scale of uplift for higher value cases, so that the uplift should not exceed £75,000 in any claim.

There has been a great deal of speculation, fed by information of varying reliability, as to how these reforms would shape up and it is helpful that the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) has released this information to clarify how the reforms are likely to look. However, there remain unanswered questions which must be addressed through the rules when they are finally published if satellite litigation is to be controlled.

focus on...

Legal updates

Reinstatement for property damage losses – when does it apply?

The Court of Appeal has recently considered the correct test for measuring the indemnity for property damage losses and has provided useful guidance on whether an insured needs to intend to reinstate the property to its pre-loss condition.

View

Legal updates

Coronavirus (COVID-19) insurance considerations

With instances of COVID-19 rapidly increasing throughout the UK, many businesses are considering the options available to limit staff and customer exposure to Coronavirus.

View

Legal updates

Financial Services – ‘Duty of Care’ Bill: consumer protection or damp squib?

The Financial Services Duty of Care Bill (the “Bill”) was introduced into the House of Lords in October 2019 and had its second reading on 9 January 2020.

View

Legal updates

Noise-induced hearing loss claims – documentation and the expert engineer

Guest writer, Finch Consulting Senior Consultant Teli Chinelis applies his expertise in preparing engineering reports in relation to noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) claims to explain information that is required from the claimant and information that is required and is advisable to be retained by employers, in order to ensure that claims can be fairly represented.

View

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