There was a legitimate reason for QOCS being created in the funding changes of April 2013. The burden of paying success fees and legal expenses premiums was shifted from the defendant so as ensure the claimant had a legitimate stake in their own costs, and the quid pro quo was that successful defendants would not get their legal costs paid unless QOCS was disapplied. However, to my great disappointment, it appears defendants will not be taking greater care over making such allegations.
As we know, in 2014 the rules changed so that only claims in excess of £100,000 could be issued in the High Court, leading to a lot of cases being transferred to the county courts. We are seeing many claims well in excess of the £100,000 threshold being transferred to the county court.
This past month Ireland has given me cause for celebration due to the decision in Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Ltd & ors v Quinn & ors  IEHC 175, which sanctioned the use of predictive coding technology in the disclosure process.
The Rolling Stones were apparently “deeply upset” – as anyone would be – after leaked court documents last year revealed confidential medical information on band members. Mick Jagger, Keith Richards and Ronnie Wood, are, it has now been revealed, mortal and subject to the same ravages of age as the rest of us.
The judgment in Excalibur Ventures v Keystone et al will give third-party litigation funders a number of reasons to consider how they structure and monitor their funding activities.
Lucy McCormick of Henderson Chambers discusses the as-yet little used discretion in the CPR to dis-apply costs budgeting, and explains how she was able to make a successful application in a case involving a litigant-in-person.
Roberto Carassale, head of costs at Blackburn firm Joseph Frasier, considers whether noise-induced hearing loss claims are disease claims for the purposes of the success fee provisions in CPR 45.34.
On 31 July, amendments to part 36 offers began to take effect, and John Spencer and John McQuater have examined the new protocols in relation to their interaction with part 36, and how its incentives to operate through the protocols, and in a fixed costs regime.
Courts around the world are cracking down on costs yet the complexity of complying with disclosure rules is increasing, especially where multiple languages are involved. Drew Macaulay of Consilio looks at the major challenges facing litigators when dealing with multi-lingual disclosure.
Sue Nash, managing director of Litigation Costs Services, explains how the costs management regime is meant to work, and the effect that last week’s Henry ruling will have on it.
Gary Knight, the costs lawyer at Harmans who acted for the claimant’s solicitors in the Court of Appeal’s important costs management case of Henry v NGN, looks at the decision in depth and at the lessons litigators should learn from it.
E-disclosure is likely to be one of the largest and most difficult parts of putting together an estimate under costs management. James Morrey-Jones, an electronic evidence consultant at Kroll Ontrack UK, considers the key issues.
Katie Simmonds and Richard Berry look at the circumstances in which it is possible to hold commercial trials in private, or at least keep confidential information out of the public domain.
Renowned costs expert Kerry Underwood outlines the many unjust scenarios that could flow from the Court of Appeal’s recent declaration that damages will be increased by 10% from 1 April 2013.
F & C Alternative Investments v Barthelemy & Anor  EWCA Civ 843 is a further reminder of the need to ensure that any intended part 36 offer complies with the formal requirements in every way. It also raises some interesting points regarding indemnity costs.
Proportionality is one of the major issues that we find we are dealing with at the end of a matter, particularly in the small-to-medium-value claims. Why was it introduced? It was considered that the then existing system was not working and that a system needed to be put in place which would “promote access to justice at proportionate cost”. In 2009, Court of Appeal judge Sir Anthony May said: “Assessments which have to concentrate retrospectively on what the winning party has spent will always risk producing a disproportionate result.”