header-logo header-logo

22 January 2009 / Nicholas Dobson
Issue: 7353 / Categories: Features , Public , Legal services , Constitutional law
printer mail-detail

A licence to govern

Unpopular but not unlawful. Nicholas Dobson gives the court’s verdict on the hike in child care court fees

Last year’s dramatic hike in court fees for public law child care and placement order applications was brought in to achieve the simple policy objective of fixing fees to reflect the true cost of these applications. But the breathtaking increases (which saw child care applications rising from £150 to £4,825 and those for placement orders from £100 to £400) attracted some sustained public law bombardment from four local authorities in judicial review proceedings brought against the lord chancellor and the secretary of state for communities and local government.

The authorities were London Borough of Hillingdon, Leeds and Liverpool City Councils and Norfolk County Council. They challenged the lawfulness of the court fee increases instituted by the Family Proceedings Fees Order 2008, (SI 2008/1054) and the Magistrates’ Courts Fees Order 2008 (SI 2008/1052). However, their combined firepower was ultimately unsuccessful, despite launching batteries of heavy ordnance loaded with warheads including: failure to consult on the principle; irrationality; discounting of a relevant consideration or decision made
If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

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