Challis vs Bradpiece

This case addressed whether the Qualified One-Way Costs Shifting (QOCS) regime applies to detailed assessment proceedings in a personal injury claim.

TLDR:

• Challis brought a personal injury claim against Bradpiece, which was settled via a Tomlin order.
• The detailed assessment of costs could not be completed in one day, leading to further submissions.
• The key issue was whether QOCS precludes enforcement of a costs order in detailed assessment proceedings.
• The court ruled in favor of the claimant, finding that QOCS applies to detailed assessment proceedings.

The claimant, Sharon Challis, filed a personal injury claim against the defendant, Howard Bradpiece, arising out of clinical negligence. The claim was settled by the defendant's acceptance of a Calderbank offer, and the settlement was embodied in a Tomlin order. Consequently, there was no order for damages in the claimant's favor, but the claimant was entitled to her costs. These costs could not be agreed upon, leading to a detailed assessment before Deputy Costs Judge Roy KC.

The detailed assessment could not be completed within the allocated day, and the parties agreed to resolve the outstanding issues on paper. After a delay due to administrative errors, the judge determined the issues, resulting in the claimant failing to beat the defendant's Part 36 offer. This entitled the defendant to a costs order in his favor for the detailed assessment proceedings. The dispute centered on whether QOCS precludes enforcement of this costs order.

QOCS was introduced in 2013 to promote access to justice in personal injury cases by capping a claimant's liability to pay the defendant's costs. The court had to determine if QOCS applies to detailed assessment proceedings, which are distinct from the substantive personal injury claim. The defendant argued that detailed assessments are separate proceedings and thus not covered by QOCS, while the claimant contended that excluding detailed assessments from QOCS would undermine its purpose.

The court considered various arguments, including the legislative intention behind QOCS and previous case law. The judge noted that the term 'proceedings' in the QOCS rules has been interpreted broadly and purposively in previous cases. The court ultimately found that excluding detailed assessments from QOCS would be contrary to the legislative intention and could leave claimants with a net liability for the defendant's costs, which would undermine the purpose of QOCS.

Deputy Costs Judge Roy KC concluded that QOCS applies to detailed assessment proceedings, precluding the defendant from enforcing the costs order in his favor. The judge granted the defendant permission to appeal, acknowledging that the issue is finely balanced and significant.

This ruling provides important clarification on the scope of QOCS and its application to detailed assessment proceedings, reinforcing the protection offered to personal injury claimants against adverse costs.

Legal representatives: Thomas Mason (counsel instructed by Penningtons Manches Cooper Llp LLP) for the claimant, Edward O'Neill (costs advocate instructed by Medical Protection) for the defendant.

Judicial Panel: Deputy Costs Judge Roy KC

Case Citation Reference: [2024] EWHC 1124 (SCCO)