Analysis of Appeal Case in Multi-Defender Action Regarding QOCS Protection

The recent overturning of a decision by the All-Scotland Sheriff Personal Injury Court regarding QOCS protection in a multi-defender action has sparked significant interest in the legal community. The original decision, which awarded no expenses due to or by the pursuer and first defenders, has now been reversed on appeal.

The case revolved around the argument that QOCS should not be disapplied in an action where the pursuer had lodged a motion seeking to assoilzie the first defenders. The pursuer contended that this did not constitute abandonment, as a formal minute was not lodged and a settlement with the second defenders was reached for the “full value” of the case. However, the first defenders appealed the decision, citing pre-litigation correspondence denying liability and restating their position throughout the proceedings.

The appeal papers argued that the pursuer’s unilateral decision to end proceedings against the first defenders without reaching a settlement or obtaining a judicial determination amounted to abandonment. The court ultimately agreed with this assessment, finding the pursuer liable for the expenses of the principal action and the appeal.

This outcome serves as a cautionary tale for both plaintiffs and defendants in personal injury actions. It highlights the importance of carefully considering the implications of actions taken during litigation, particularly in multi-defender cases where QOCS protection may be at stake. The case underscores the need for parties to fully understand the potential consequences of their decisions and to seek legal guidance when navigating complex legal matters.

Steven Smart, partner and head of Horwich Farrelly Scotland, provided analysis on the appeal case, shedding light on the key legal principles at play. The decision will undoubtedly have far-reaching implications for future personal injury actions and the application of QOCS protection in similar circumstances.