Djanogly: QOCS applies to all

Interesting ideas but this leads to a series of potential consequences - an increase in the number of claims lodged by LiP's, an increase in the number of defendants standing for thier case in person when costs may clearly be not recoverable but more than anything in my opinion to a confusing period as to how do you draw the line between a case properly conducted and one improperly conducted.

How much bearing would following the correct procedural aspect and how much bearing would the merit of the claim have in deciding the proper conduct? Certainly it appears to me that this has to e decided on a case by case basis.

Is anyone else confused? He refers to all 'all Claimants' but as far as I understand the government has specifically told the Civil Justice Committee only to deal with QOCS in relation to personal injury matters.
What about other litigation, actions against the police, defamation or judicial review for example?
ATE recovery has been withdrawn here too but will QOCS apply here as Jackson recommended?

Any information would be greatly appreciated.

Let me get this right. A Claimant brings a weak claim against an innocent defendant. The claim fails and the innocent defendant is left to pay its own costs. I always thought costs follow the event? What is this all about? Sounds like the bad old days of legal aid in PI where the innocent defendant offered £1,000 (as even if they win at trial they can recover no costs) and had his hand taken off as that meant the try it on Claimant got all of their costs paid. What, really do the Claimants and their costs-motivated ambulance chasing frients have to lose/complain about? Even if you lose you don't pay. Have a go my friend, it's all free (but not for the defendant). Hardly a level playing field my Claimant friends. I can only foresee a huge influx of dodgy claims, paid out as the Defendant will lose even if they win. Total madness.

Dear itsgrimupnorth, your faith in the system is touching, but you are overlooking the problem posed when a genuine claimant is faced with a part 36 offer at the very bottom of an extensive bracket and finds they have to accept this lowest possible sum because the consequences of failing to beat it don't bear thinking about. And don't even get me started on defendant representatives who make part 36 offers when the medical evidence isn't even complete, or even available. Genuine claimants will be adversely affected as they will either have to accept low offers, or pay for ATE insurance which isn't recoverable.

You are fortunate in your experience of meeting only sane judges then. Exactly this scenario has happened to me. I have no doubt that it will happen again, and who am I to risk my clients own money in the belief that "it will all come out in the wash"?
You are right, most issued claims have medical evidence available - but it may not be a final prognosis. The expert says "I really need to see this client again 6 months post the forthcoming surgery". The defendants make a ball park offer. I say to my client, "Sorry, can't really advise you properly, but the risk if we reject and then 6 months down the line realise we should have accepted is all yours". Excellent news for claimants, as you suggest.

darn you Julie, I have been unmasked.

My reforms are coming and theres nothing you can do about it

*skips into the sunset laughing madly*

Sorry,I feel really mean in saying that 'all of you sound crazy anyway' although I am sure that you don't care anyway but I don't really think you all sound crazy.....just some of you.

I know I am a bit late in this debate but I am a Claimant lawyer and I cannot see what all the fuss is about. Maybe I have totally misunderstood the proposals but at present I have to assess the chances of success to see if it is worth bringing a claim. If the case is borderline I may want to pursue it, but unless I jump through the hoops of instructing Counsel and pandering to an ATE insurer's whims I will not be able to because there is too much risk to my client. As we speak I have a couple of cases vaguely only half-heartedly supported by Counsel which ATE providers have refused to fund.

In the new regime if my client has only a marginally acceptable case not only do I not have to worry about there being any consequences for him if he loses but I do not even need to get a written Advice or approach an insurer to fund it. I can tell my client, "you will probably lose but let's have a go". The only risk is that I do not recover my disbursements but I can still insure that if I really want to.

On the Defendant side the insurer/Solicitors is left saying "hang on, so this Claimant has an absolutely rubbish case and even if I prove that at trial and win I will gain nothing at all for my client but will still have to bill them for the work?".

Does that not mean that an insurer has an incentive to settle absolutely every claim because it is cheaper to do that than Defend it successfully to a trial? The only caveat is if a Part 36 offer is made but as mentioned above, if a crappy case results in any offer at all then happy days for the Claimant. The Part 36 thing doesn't seem much different than now anyway; if you get a reasonable offer early on and fail to beat it the Claimant's damages will almost certainly be totally wiped out by the adverse costs order, except in very high value cases, and the ATE insurer will refuse to pay out on the basis that the offer was unreasonably rejected.

I see a world of increased litigation with no risk, more frequent insurance payouts, and big rewards for Claimant lawyers willing to have a go. Surely the Government has to raise the small claims limit just to put a stop to all that? Now then that will be bad.

Here endeth the rant.