Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 27 MARCH 2023

QOCS Changes In April 2023: The Practical And Tactical Implications For Claimants And Their Solicitors

Gatehouse Chambers
Gatehouse Chambers
Contributor
Gatehouse Chambers

Gatehouse Chambers

Gatehouse Chambers is a leading commercial set with expertise spanning commercial dispute...

View firm profile
Explore more from Gatehouse Chambers

In what is becoming something of a pattern, the Rules committee have come along to clear up the anomaly resulting from the decisions in the Appellate courts, this time...

United KingdomLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration

In what is becoming something of a pattern, the Rules committee have come along to clear up the anomaly resulting from the decisions in the Appellate courts, this time in Cartwright v Venduct Engineering Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 1654; [2018] 1 WLR 6137 and Ho v Adelekun [2021] UKSC 43; [2021] 1 WLR 5132.

As all PI litigation lawyers know, Cartright precluded enforcement in cases where settlement had been agreed, limiting enforcement to those cases in which there had been a court order concerning the award of damages.Although this had the undoubted effect of encouraging ADR and settlement, it also had the perverse incentive of encouraging defendants to press to trial, while simultaneously robbing Part 36 offers of much of their teeth.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See more popular content from