Matthew Hoe examines the effect of Ho on QOCS
The Supreme Court’s decision in Ho v Adelekun  UKSC 43, on qualified one-way costs shifting (QOCS) and set off, lays out temptation for personal injury claimants and their lawyers. Should a claimant now take a chance on that interim application? Now, as long as there is no order for damages – easily achieved through a settlement or discontinuance later – the claimant will not actually have to pay the defendant’s costs if the application is lost, and will get to keep costs if the application is won. And then, also, an even more certain bet, once the claim has settled, and knowing then that there is no order for damages, should a claimant take a chance on a costs argument, to try to get more, witho...
Director of Dispute Resolution