I'm interested in…

  • Strategy & Procedure
  • Motor
  • Fraud
  • Disease
  • Catastrophic Injury
  • Commercial Insurance
  • Costs
  • Liability
  • Local Authority
  • Professional Indemnity
  • Scotland

Jackson in Action

In our regular monthly round up of cases we look at the effects of the changes to the Civil Procedure Rules under the Jackson Reforms:

Qualified One-Way Costs Shifting/fundamental dishonesty: In Howlett & Anor v Davies & Ageas (2017) the Court of Appeal confirmed that there was no need for a defendant to plead fundamental dishonesty in order to seek a suspension of QOCS under CPR r.44.16. As long as the defence was fully pleaded in order to allow the claimant to know what case they faced and as long as the issues were explored at trial, a trial judge could reach a finding of fundamental dishonesty if the evidence was there for them to do so. The Court of Appeal also confirmed that His Honour Judge Maloney QC had applied a "common sense" definition of fundamental dishonesty in Gosling v Screwfix (2014). 30.10.17. We look at the case in greater depth in DWF Insurance Updates | No need to plead fraud but a need to tread carefully

Recovery of pre-LASPO additional liabilities/new proportionality test: In BNM v MGN Ltd (2017), the Court of Appeal confirmed that the old test for proportionality applies when assessing recovery of additional liabilities incurred under a pre-LASPO "pre-commencement funding arrangement" as defined in CPR r.48.1. The test under the old CPR r.44.4 (2), provided that costs that were reasonable and necessarily incurred were recoverable, trumping proportionality, whereas the new test for proportionality under the current CPR r.44.3 (2) and r.44.3 (5) trumps reasonableness and necessity.

Share your views

Please complete your details below to share your views. All comments are moderated and only your name and comment will be visible.

Your Comment

This information is intended as a general discussion surrounding the topics covered and is for guidance purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice and should not be regarded as a substitute for taking legal advice. DWF is not responsible for any activity undertaken based on this information.