Qualified One Way Costs Shifting
Leveson Inquiry · An Inquiry into the Culture, Practices and Ethics of the Press · Issued 29 November 2012 · Addressed to: UK Government
Government responseUK Government: Not accepted (Mar 2018)
DeliveryMinistry of Justice says not accepted (Nov 2018)
Recommendation, verbatim from the inquiry
●Inquiry recommendation
In the absence of the provision of an approved mechanism for dispute resolution, available through an independent regulator without cost to the complainant, together with an adjustment to the Civil Procedure Rules to require or permit the court take account of the availability of cost free arbitration as an alternative to court proceedings, qualified one way costs shifting should be introduced for defamation, privacy, breach of confidence and similar media related litigation as proposed by Lord Justice Jackson.
Leveson Inquiry, An Inquiry into the Culture, Practices and Ethics of the Press · 29 Nov 2012 Source PDF →
Published evidence summary
AI-generated evidence summary
The Inquiry recommended introducing qualified one-way costs shifting for media litigation without approved arbitration. In November 2018, the Ministry of Justice stated that the Government did not believe introducing a bespoke costs protection regime was "the right way forward" (Ministry of Justice, Nov 2018; Ministry of Justice, Nov 2018). Previously, in March 2018, Matt Hancock, Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, announced a decision not to commence Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 (Matt Hancock response, Mar 2018). In April 2013, Jeremy Wright, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice, stated that the Government was considering advice received from the Civil Justice Council (Jeremy Wright, Apr 2013).
Sources
AI-generated summary of the record on this page, checked by a second model and automatic checks, 1 Oct 2026.
Report-level response context
Government response
●UK Government · Not accepted · 1 Mar 2018
Mr Speaker, we have decided not to commence Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 and to seek repeal at the earliest opportunity.
Extract from: Leveson Consultation Response
Delivery
●Ministry of Justice says not accepted · 29 Nov 2018
In light of those concerns, including the potential implications of the new costs protection arrangements as proposed, the Government does not believe that introducing a new bespoke costs protection regime as proposed in the consultation in place of the existing costs protection arrangements is the right way forward.
Earlier statements on delivery (0)
●Ministry of Justice · 29 Nov 2018
Those reforms, contained in Part 2 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders (LASPO) Act 2012, which abolished the payment of a lawyer’s success fee by losing defendants, was delayed for defamation cases while the Government sought to develop a bespoke costs protection regime as recommended by the Leveson Report.
●Ministry of Justice · 25 Apr 2013
The Government has recently received advice from the Civil Justice Council in relation to Recommendation 74 (costs protection). The Government will consider how that should be taken forward before setting out the next steps.
From: Culture, Practices and Ethics of the Press Inquiry (Commons written answer), Jeremy Wright, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice
How this page is built
The recommendation and the government responses are verbatim from primary documents. Delivery statements and other bodies' findings are shown in their own words, each with its source. The summary is written by this site and labelled as such. The Index does not paraphrase sources or characterise intent; it records what has been published.