Page 5 - Inside Law Magazine Issue 9 - Winter 2014-15
P. 5

Peter Jones is a Costs Lawyer and                Peter Jones
                                               Manages the Costs Department
                                               at R Costings. He has dealt with
                                               the preparation of Bills of Costs in
                                               practically every area and is a skilled
                                               advocate having attended many
                                               detailed assessments throughout
                                               the country, both justifying and
                                               opposing bills. Peter has been
                                               involved in all aspects of large
                                               clinical negligence and multi-
                                               million pound personal injury cases
                                               involving complex costs issues.
                                               For all Law Costs queries,
                                               please email
                                               or call on 01480 463499.

disapproval of such conduct, by awarding       sum of £25,000.00 and the Court concludes        “this section does not apply to proceedings
percentage related Costs Orders. Now,          that damages recorded under sub-section          started by the issue of a claim form before
however, the roles will be reversed with       (4) would have been £20,000.00, then a           the day on which this section comes
damages being struck-out and a Costs           Claimant pays the balance of £10,000.00          into force”. Whilst the provisions are
Order being made against the Claimant.         to the Defendant. The Claimant would             retrospective and will apply before the
Clause 49 (5) states that, “a Costs Order      therefore lose his or her QOCS protection.       law comes into force, they do not apply
made by a Court which dismisses a              Clause 49 (2) states that whilst the Court       prior to this Bill being implemented.
claim under this section may require the       “must dismiss the primary claim” there is        Thus, an influx of proceedings will no
Claimant to pay costs incurred by the          the added caveat “unless it is satisfied         doubt be issued beforehand, to prevent
Defendant only to the extent that they         that the Claimant would suffer substantial       as many cases as possible potentially
exceed the amount of damages recorded          injustice if the claim were dismissed”. Whilst   falling foul of, and being subject to the
in accordance with sub-section (4)”.           “substantial injustice” is not defined, in such  scrutiny of, the provisions of Clause 49 (9).
Clause 49 (4) states that;                     circumstances, the Court would not be able       Those of us within or close to the PI
 “the Court Order dismissing the claim         to find in favour of the Claimant but would      market, should pay close attention to
must record the amount of damages that         be able to reduce or eliminate damages.          developments over the coming months.
the Court would have awarded to the            Obviously, this Bill has yet to be presented to
Claimant in respect of the primary claim, but  Parliament and is not expected to become
for (emphasis added) the dismissal of the      law until early 2015, but it gives another
claim”. Thus, if a claim has been dismissed    clear indication that the PI market is coming
due to fundamental dishonesty whereby          under considerable scrutiny yet again and
the Defendant’s costs are presented in the     procedurally Clause 49 (9) states that;

   1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10