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
Source — 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 →
Response — verbatim from government
●UK Government
This recommendation was not implemented. The government did not formally respond to civil justice recommendations in the Prime Minister's statement of 29 November 2012. Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013, which would have created a costs incentive mechanism, was enacted but never commenced. On 1 March 2018, the Secretary of State announced that Section 40 would not be commenced and would be repealed. Section 40 was repealed by Section 50 of the Media Act 2024 (Royal Assent 24 May 2024). Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/leveson-consultation-response
UK Government · 29 Nov 2012 Written response →
Evidence trail — what's actually happened since
- 27 Feb 2025 · Government Qualified one-way costs shifting for media-related litigation was not introduced. The absence of both QOCS and Section 40 means the cost barriers to bringing claims against major publishers remain prohibitive for most individuals. View source → Not Implemented
Each entry above links to a primary source — gov.uk written statement, consultation response document, or inspection report. The Index does not characterise government intent; it tracks what has been published.
How this page is built
Source and Response are verbatim from primary documents. The Evidence trail records published activity since — written statements, consultation outcomes, inspection findings, parliamentary references. The Index does not paraphrase or characterise intent; it tracks what has been published. Where the evidence is the absence of action (a missed deadline, a slipped timetable), that absence is documented from primary sources rather than inferred.
This recommendation's data is verified periodically against primary sources. The Index is monitored for staleness weekly.