There has been much debate about the impact of QOCS on litigation. To date much of this has, inevitably, been speculative. However it is worthwhile reading George Riley’s article, Fundamental dishonesty and litigation in the post-Jackson landscape. This shows, honestly and clearly, the thinking behind the defendant’s stance in a case that – pre QOCS – would have settled.
“I got the impression that the claimant solicitors expected a ‘drop hands’ offer at the very least, but we decided not to make any offers.”
Mr Riley reports on a case or Mark Ryan -v-Amey PLC. The defendant’s case was that the claimant had deliberately slammed on his brakes to cause a crash. However there were none of the usual signs of a dishonest claimant. No claims history; the claimant had attended his GP and physiotherapy and was not “over-egging the pudding”.
PRE QOCS AND POST QOCS: AN INTERESTING ANALYSIS
This is the most telling observation.
“I have dealt with cases of a similar nature for a number of years, including prior to the dramatic and controversial changes which Jackson introduced. Pre-Jackson, there was a real risk that certain claimant firms would submit an inflated cost schedule with the added concern of a 100% uplift. This meant that more often than not a sensible and commercial decision would be made to settle on best possible terms – even if there were concerns about the claim. Alternatively a protective and tempting Part 36 would be put on the table in order to give the defendant a security blanket should the matter proceed to trial.”
However post QOCS:
” …we decided to run the case to trial as the fixed costs regime meant the financial risk in proceeding was a risk worth taking”
THE RESULT AT TRIAL
That decision was justified. The claimant was found to have applied his brakes deliberately and the claim dismissed. A finding of “fundamental dishonesty” was made and the claimant was ordered to pay the costs.
THE LESSON: DON’T START WHAT YOU CAN’T FINISH
The important point here is that the commercial realities of litigation are changing in a fundamental way. Defendants can, and are, making different decisions under the fixed costs/QOCS regime.
- Claims will now be litigated on their merits, with defendants less concerned about a draconian costs order.
- Claimants should only start cases that they are prepared to take all the way to trial. Last minute settlement may be less common.
EXPLAINING THIS TO THE CLIENT
Most cases settle. However it is now less likely that cases of a certain type will settle. Particularly those where a defendant suspects fraud or wrong-doing. This emphasises the importance of taking a full statement from the client. Assessing credibility (which is not easy) and explaining the risks of litigation to the client, including the risk of a finding of fundamental dishonesty.
RELATED POSTS ON QOCS
- QOCS, striking out and the ability to pay in full: a county court decision
- The transitional provisions of QOCS: The meaning of “proceedings”.
- The transitional provisions of QOCS : a danger area
- More about QOCS: can they apply on appeal if the claimant had a pre-April 2013 CFA?
- Can you get an order for QOCS to apply on appeal?
- QOCS in the Court of Appeal: four important issues.
- Setting aside notice of discontinuance in a QOCS case.
RELATES POSTS ABOUT WITNESS CREDIBILITY
- 1. Litigators must know about credibility
- .2. Witness Statements and Witness Evidence: More about Credibility
- .3. Which Witness will be believed?Is it all a lottery?4. The witnesses say the other side is lying: What does the judge do?5. Assessing the reliability of witnesses: How does the judge decide?