Report comment

Anon @ 12.33 - the judgment appears to preserve the option of one (losing) Defendant being ordered to pay the costs of the other (winning) Defendant - Para 23 of the judgment:

"Let us assume that the claimant issued proceedings against two defendants, A and B, which went all the way to trial. The claimant recovered £100,000 against defendant A, but the claim against defendant B failed, leading B to incur £40,000 by way of costs. In circumstances where the claimant had freely sued B (so that a Bullock or Sanderson order was inappropriate), I can see no reason in principle why B should not recover the £40,000 from the £100,000 payable by A to the claimant."

The more obvious point to me is that in the above example, based on this judgment, the Claimant and Defendant A could obviously settle by way of a Tomlin order specifically with the intention of depriving Defendant B of its costs.

In reality, QOCS protection will therefore only be lost if the case goes to trial, or if you have an oddly principled Defendant A who refuses to enter into a Tomlin Order as it seems unfair to Defendant B.