In the first decision of its kind, Claimant party whose Clinical Negligence claim was automatically struck out after he failed to comply with the terms of a consent order, cannot benefit from qualified one-way costs shifting (QOCS), the High Court has ruled.

In Read v North Middlesex Hospital Trust [2025] EWHC 1603 (KB), the claimant acted for himself until October 2023, writing his own letter of claim in May 2019 over treatment of a back injury.

The Unless Order and Strike-Out

He issued in the County Court, which made an unless order in October 2020, requiring Mr Read to “better particularise his claim or otherwise for it to be struck out”. Mr Read appealed against the order and “further applications followed”.

Upon providing further Particulars, the Court deemed that they still failed to properly particularise so that a Defence could be formed and failure to comply with the previous Order for the same, struck the claim out.

Dispute Over Automatic Strike-Out

Shortly after the strike-out, the Parties started to debate if there had been an automatic strike out, but the Court was required to interject again.

Court’s Interpretation of CPR 44.15

On considering CPR 44.15, the court rejected the Claimant’s interpretation that QOCS protection is only disapplied when strike-out is for lack of reasonable grounds or abuse of process (CPR 3.4(2)(a) or (b)).

Instead, the court emphasized that failure to comply with an “unless” order leading to strike-out under CPR 3.4(2)(c) can indeed engage QOCS because it overlaps with abuse of process or no reasonable grounds. Therefore, QOCS was disapplied, allowing the Defendant to enforce an order for costs without permission.

Master Thornett’s Reasoning

Master Thornett agreed with the defendant that “such a restrictive interpretation could lead to unjust consequences”, such as a claimant who “egregiously fails to comply with an unless order obliging them to preserve documents” by instead destroying them.

“Would the obvious abuse of process here mean the claimant was nonetheless immune from the application of rule 44.15 strictly because their claim had been struck out pursuant to rule 3.4(2)(c)? This surely would neither fair nor correct.”

He said: “I am therefore satisfied that ‘grounds’ in rule 44.15 refers to, no more and no less, than the underlying reason explanation why a claim came to be struck out. The way in which a claim can come to be struck out can procedurally various.

Implications for Qualified One-Way Costs Shifting (QOCS)

Qualified One-Way Costs Shifting (QOCS) was first introduced in April 2013 as part of wider reforms to improve access to justice in personal injury claims and negligence claims. It typically shields claimants in a claim for damages from being ordered to pay the defendant’s costs—unless they lose, or certain exceptions apply.

Under CPR 44.15, QOCS protection is disapplied in cases where the claim is struck out due to:
• Lack of reasonable grounds for bringing the claim,
• Abuse of process, or
• Conduct by the claimant (or someone acting on their behalf, with their knowledge) likely to obstruct the just disposal of proceedings.

The court also noted parallels with cases involving fundamentally dishonest claimants, where QOCS protection is removed entirely. Similarly, situations involving failures to comply with procedural directions—such as deadlines, disclosure obligations, or Part 36 offers—may also expose a claimant to adverse costs consequences.

Previously, a strike-out for procedural or technical non-compliance (e.g., failure to meet filing deadlines) did not automatically result in the disapplying of QOCS—unless that non-compliance amounted to abuse of process or otherwise undermined fairness. This ruling clarifies that non-compliance can, in certain circumstances, have the same effect.

Key Takeaway

The ruling confirms that failing to comply with an “unless” order can lead to the loss of QOCS protection. This decision strengthens defendants’ ability to enforce costs and serves as a warning to claimants that procedural non-compliance can have serious financial consequences, particularly where a conditional fee agreement is in place.

How Can Greener Costs Help?

Cases like Read v North Middlesex Hospital Trust highlight the importance of proactive case management and careful compliance with court directions. At Greener Costs, we provide expert costs consultancy support to solicitors and firms dealing with complex personal injury and clinical negligence cases.

Whether you need assistance drafting compliant bills of costs, responding to challenges, or ensuring your clients are protected against adverse costs risks, our team is here to help. We combine technical expertise with a pragmatic, hands-on approach to costs litigation.

If you are dealing with a case where Qualified One-way Costs Shifting protection may be at risk following strike-out or procedural non-compliance, speak to Greener Costs on 01204 263 047 or email info@greenercosts.co.uk for expert costs support.