****UPDATED CONTENT - VITAL INFORMATION FOR PRACTITIONERS****
This webinar will be an up to the minute analysis of this important Court of Appeal decision on the limits of Qualified One Way Costs Shifting, including a review of the importance of the Marleasing duty in respect of interpretation.
Join APIL president Brett Dixon for a review of this important decision:
- Is a claim against the MIB caught by the one way costs shifting rules?
- What is the rationale behind the QOCS scheme?
- What does this mean for QOCS generally?
- The difference between domestic interpretation and European interpretation
- What might that mean if we Brexit?
- What does “Damages for personal injuries mean”?
- Why was Moreno v MIB so important?
- What does this mean practically for my own caseload?
The webinar will also look at the case of Jeffreys v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis as a growing area of concern for practitioners is when QOCS protection might be lost due to arguments about the meaning of “damages for personal injuries” under CPR 44.13.
It will also cover a new argument that has been taken by defendants in relation to set off. The case of Darini v Makestudy Group saw this discussed at an appellate level with an outcome favourable to the claimant. In Howe v MIB this issue was decided in a supplementary, as yet unpublished, judgment on costs and decided in the favour of the MIB. This undoubtedly undermines the purpose of QOCS.
These are two areas of risk that you as a practitioner need to know about to comply with your professional obligation to advise your client fully on the costs protection available under the QOCS scheme. This is vital information for practitioners.