Meghann McTague issues a particular warning to defendants in cross-border claims
In August 2014, the Court of Appeal considered a number of questions relating to both the validity and scope of the qualified one-way costs shifting system (QOCS) at CPR 44.13 to 44.17 (Wagenaar v Weekend Travel Ltd t/a Ski Weekend [2014] EWCA Civ 1105, [2014] All ER (D) 24 (Aug)).
Background
Six months on from the commencement of the new regime following Lord Justice Jackson’s wide-reaching reforms, practitioners are acutely aware of the costs consequences for those claims in which there is not a pre-commencement funding arrangement in place.
QOCS was introduced as part of the package of reforms, including the removal of the recovery of ATE premiums and success fees from unsuccessful defendants, inter alia. The quid pro quo for claimants making personal injury claims was that, subject to a number of exceptions (CPR 44.15), they would not be exposed to a costs risk (beyond any damages awarded to them) in the event that they were unsuccessful; albeit the
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=e3c4b2f1_1)
