header-logo header-logo

04 February 2014
Issue: 7593 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Court fees rise will hurt business

LSLA issues warning over 12-fold hike in commercial court fees

Senior business lawyers have issued a stern warning about Ministry of Justice (MoJ) proposals to hike fees nearly 12-fold in commercial courts.

The London Solicitors Litigation Association (LSLA) say the increase would jeopardise the ability of small and medium sized businesses to pursue bad debts or settle contract disputes. They say the impact of the proposals has been made worse by the additional upfront costs arising from the Jackson reforms—skewing the costs-benefit balance so that companies will be more likely to write off losses than seek redress.

The MoJ recently proposed that civil and commercial courts become self-financing with extra money raised from commercial cases to subsidise family court costs.

In its consultation, Court Fees: Proposals for Reform, it suggests the issue fee for a £400,000 commercial claim in the Rolls Building, currently £1,670, should rise to £20,000. 

However, the LSLA opposes the rise and has argued that fees should be high enough to deter time-wasters but low enough not to be a barrier. It is concerned that “by viewing high value international commercial litigation conducted in London as a cash cow to be milked at will, the MoJ will drive work into the arms of competitor jurisdictions such as New York and Singapore”.

LSLA President Francesca Kaye says: “No one should be priced out of civil litigation from the outset.

“All but the biggest UK businesses would suffer if these increased charges are driven through. Charges would be the same for multi-million pound claims as for the lower value claims that individuals or SMEs might make, weighting the system heavily in favour of multinationals but penalising the businesses which are the lifeblood of our economy.

“The last thing SMEs need is more risk. Neither this nor ramping up fees for international cases make commercial sense for government or business. The courts play a vital role in the economy and should be enabled to be effective.” 

The LSLA also opposes the idea that business court users should subsidise other court users. Kaye says: “It seems inconsistent to increase fees in the civil courts but standardise, or even reduce, fees in other areas."

 

Issue: 7593 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll