Government drops plans to protect civil claimants from paying costs
The Government has dropped plans to extend incoming access to justice provisions beyond personal injury (PI) as the debate over the implementation of the Jackson reforms to civil litigation costs continues. The Government earlier this month confirmed that it had rejected proposals to usher in so-called 'qualified one-way costs-shifting' (QOCS) beyond PI claims during a Parliamentary debate on the new civil justice bill.
February 09, 2012 at 09:12 AM
3 minute read
The Government has dropped plans to extend incoming access to justice provisions beyond personal injury (PI) as the debate over the implementation of the Jackson reforms to civil litigation costs continues.
The Government earlier this month confirmed that it had rejected proposals to usher in so-called 'qualified one-way costs-shifting' (QOCS) beyond PI claims during a Parliamentary debate on the new civil justice bill.
The access to justice provision QOCS is designed to protect claimants of limited means having to pay the other side's costs if their claim fails, and is set to be implemented for PI claims in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill (LASPO).
The Government had been considering extending such costs protection beyond PI claims, raising the possibility that it would have been introduced for areas such as professional negligence or libel.
The move was part of proposed reforms to the civil litigation costs regime put forward by Lord Justice Jackson in his 2010 report, which has been largely adopted under the LASPO bill.
The wider reforms will limit the 'loser pays' model in civil litigation so that success fees and associated insurance costs in 'no win, no fee' litigation will be paid by claimants, not the losing party. Supporters argue that the shake-up in litigation funding will give claimants an incentive to control costs and clamp down on aggressive litigation.
Responding to a House of Lords committee debate last week on the LASPO bill, justice minister Lord McNally (pictured) said: "Lord Justice Jackson suggested that QOCS might be considered for introduction in some non-PI claims as an alternative to recoverable [litigation costs] insurance. The Government are not persuaded that the case for this has been made at this stage."
The move will be welcomed by defendant lawyers, who argued that extending the QOCS model beyond PI would stoke trivial claims.
Kennedys personal injury partner Tracy Head commented: "If QOCS were to extend to, for example, professional indemnity cases then the enhanced costs of defending such a claim would force defendants to compromise unmeritorious claims – thereby encouraging the flow of such cases."
The news comes after the Government announced a six-month delay to the introduction of LASPO bill last month, with the new legislation now set to come into effect in April 2013. The decision has been taken to allow law firms and legal businesses more time to prepare themselves for the implications of the shake-up.
Meanwhile, in a separate development, the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) today (9 February) unveiled plans aimed at reducing the number of claims going through the civil courts.
The package will raise the value of non-personal injury claims that can be heard in the High Court from £25,000 to £100,000. In addition, disputes involving equity will only be referred to the High Court where the property is valued at more than £350,000, against a current level of £30,000.
The MoJ is also to double the size of civil claims that can be handled in the county court to £10,000 with a further consultation on raising the level to £15,000.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLatAm Moves: DLA Piper Chile, Brazil’s Demarest Build Out Disputes Muscle
Kingsley Napley and Lord Pannick Spearhead Private Schools' Challenge to Government VAT Policy
Spain Loses Appeal as London Court Rejects Claim of Immunity in €101 Million Arbitral Award Enforcement
Jones Day Expands European Footprint with Global Disputes Partner in Madrid
Trending Stories
- 1'Largest Retail Data Breach in History'? Hot Topic and Affiliated Brands Sued for Alleged Failure to Prevent Data Breach Linked to Snowflake Software
- 2Former President of New York State Bar, and the New York Bar Foundation, Dies As He Entered 70th Year as Attorney
- 3Legal Advocates in Uproar Upon Release of Footage Showing CO's Beat Black Inmate Before His Death
- 4Longtime Baker & Hostetler Partner, Former White House Counsel David Rivkin Dies at 68
- 5Court System Seeks Public Comment on E-Filing for Annual Report
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250