header-logo header-logo

"Disappointing" & "perfunctory" response on fees

11 November 2016
Issue: 7723 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

The Bar Council has blasted the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) over its “disappointing response” to the Justice Committee’s report on Courts and Tribunal Fees.

The Chairman of the Committee also weighed in, criticizing the MoJ for its “perfunctory response”

In its June report, Courts and tribunals fees, the Justice Committee called for employment tribunal fees to be “substantially reduced” and for the three-month time limit for women alleging maternity or pregnancy-based discrimination to be given special consideration. On both points the MoJ said it would respond in due course.

The Justice Committee called on the MoJ not to double the £10,000 cap on civil claims fees without further review. The MoJ said it is currently undertaking research into this point. The Committee called on the MoJ to rescind the increase in the divorce petition fee to £550, and warned it is unwise to propose fee increases to achieve full cost recovery in the immigration and asylum chambers before a review into the impact of employment tribunal fee increases has been published. In response, the MoJ said it does not accept the Committee’s view on the divorce petition fee and disagrees that it is unwise to increase immigration and asylum chambers fees which, it argued, are not comparable to employment tribunal fees.

Law Society president Robert Bourns said: “Recent fee increases should be reversed pending a proper assessment of their effect on access to justice.

“There is a growing imbalance created by fee increases that places the courts out of reach for many small businesses and all but the wealthiest individuals in society.”

Bourns said immigration tribunal fee increases of more than 500% would have a chilling effect on people's ability to pursue appeals, while the MoJ’s own figures show that employment tribunal cases have fallen by 70% since fees increased.

“The court fee increases that have now been adopted were opposed by 90% of respondents to the government consultation, making a mockery of the consultation process, and further questioned by the Justice Select Committee,” he said.

In a sharp rebuke, Chantal-Aimée Doerries QC, Chairman of the Bar, said: “The government seems wedded to the principle that courts should be used as a source of revenue, despite repeated calls for a review and the growing evidence that this approach is effectively pricing people out of justice.

“Hardworking people seeking justice through the courts have been hit with a 600% increase in court fees, a 500% increase in immigration tribunal charges, and charges of up to £1,500 for employment tribunals, but still there has been no impact review of these fees on access to justice.

“Just last week, the TUC’s analysis of official government statistics painted a worrying picture of those facing sexism, racism, disability discrimination at work being priced out of court, and statistics from the Registry Trust show a 19 per cent drop in county court judgments against businesses in the first half of 2016.”

Doerries also called on the MoJ to set a date for its promised review into the impact of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act (LASPO) as a matter of urgency.

Bob Neill MP, Chair of the Justice Committee, said: “It is disappointing that the government response is so negative in respect of the Justice Committee's recommendations; perhaps more concerning is that it is almost offensively perfunctory, appearing to have been rushed out at short notice and giving little evidence of attention paid to the Committee's detailed evidence and analysis. This is all the more surprising given that government has had more than four months to produce this reply. I therefore intend to raise this matter and possible further steps with the Committee at our next meeting.”

Issue: 7723 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ career profile: Liz McGrath KC

NLJ career profile: Liz McGrath KC

A good book, a glass of chilled Albarino, and being creative for pleasure help Liz McGrath balance the rigours of complex bundles and being Head of Chambers

Burges Salmon—Matthew Hancock-Jones

Burges Salmon—Matthew Hancock-Jones

Firm welcomes director in its financial services financial regulatory team

Gateley Legal—Sam Meiklejohn

Gateley Legal—Sam Meiklejohn

Partner appointment in firm’s equity capital markets team

NEWS

Walkers and runners will take in some of London’s finest views at the 16th annual charity event

Law school partners with charity to give free assistance to litigants in need

Could the Labour government usher in a new era for digital assets, ask Keith Oliver, head of international, and Amalia Neenan FitzGerald, associate, Peters & Peters, in this week’s NLJ

An extra bit is being added to case citations to show the pecking order of the judges concerned. Former district judge Stephen Gold has the details, in his ‘Civil way’ column in this week’s NLJ

The Labour government’s position on alternative dispute resolution (ADR) is not yet clear

back-to-top-scroll