This site uses cookies.

The ambit of QOCS considered (again): who can recover costs in cases outside the straightforward Claimant v Defendant scenario? - Alice Nash, Hailsham Chambers

28/01/19. In Cartwright v Venduct Engineering Limited [2018] EWCA Civ 1654, decided in July 2018, the Court of Appeal held that in a QOCS case with multiple defendants, the ability to recover costs from damages pursuant to CPR r.44.14(1) extended to all the defendants, not just the defendant who paid those damages. Cartwright has subsequently been relied upon, with conflicting results, in two County Court cases addressing the slightly different question of whether a counterclaiming defendant is entitled to the protection of QOCS in relation to all the costs of the action in which the claim and counterclaim were brought.

Multiple defendants

In Cartwright, the Claimant had sued several defendants for noise-induced hearing loss. He compromised his claim against certain of the defendants by way of a Tomlin order which provided for the payment of damages, and discontinued his claim against Venduct, meaning that a deemed award of costs arose in Venduct’s favour. Venduct sought to recover their costs from the payment made from the other defendants.

The Court of Appeal held that there was nothing in the wording of CPR r.44(1) to suggest that the fund from which a costs order could be met was specific to damages and interest payable by the defendant seeking to enforce the costs order. The language of the rule was wide and could plainly encompass the situation in which...

Image ©

Read more (PIBULJ subscribers only)...

All information on this site was believed to be correct by the relevant authors at the time of writing. All content is for information purposes only and is not intended as legal advice. No liability is accepted by either the publisher or the author(s) for any errors or omissions (whether negligent or not) that it may contain. 

The opinions expressed in the articles are the authors' own, not those of Law Brief Publishing Ltd, and are not necessarily commensurate with general legal or medico-legal expert consensus of opinion and/or literature. Any medical content is not exhaustive but at a level for the non-medical reader to understand. 

Professional advice should always be obtained before applying any information to particular circumstances.

Excerpts from judgments and statutes are Crown copyright. Any Crown Copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of OPSI and the Queen’s Printer for Scotland under the Open Government Licence.