header-logo header-logo

24 January 2013
Issue: 7545 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Refund for search fee mistake

Administrative oversight at HMCTS

Solicitors could be due a refund following an administrative blunder by the courts.

HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) has admitted incorrectly charging search fees dating back to 1999, and has promised full refunds to all affected.

The mistake relates to the fee paid for searches of the daily register of claims for all High Court jurisdictions apart from company records and bankruptcy proceedings, under Pt 5.4 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Since 26 April 1999, this fee of £5 has not been applicable and should not have been charged.

An HMCTS note explains that the error related to “an inconsistency” between the Civil Procedure Rules and Supreme Court Fees Order 1999 (SI 1999/687) and subsequent fees orders.

It advises its customers that, in order to claim a refund, they will need to provide a receipt for each payment claimed, and fill out a refund fee form. One form per customer is sufficient, and the forms can be picked up from the Rolls Building or the Royal Courts of Justice fees office.

Refunds will be paid by cheque within five weeks of receipt of the correct documentation.

An HMCTS spokesperson said the error was “due to an administrative oversight”.

“HMCTS has ceased charging for this service and taken steps to inform those customers affected of how they can claim a refund. All customers who have paid for searches of the daily register of all High Court jurisdictions since 26 April 1999 are entitled to a refund for the full amount paid, as long as they are able to provide proof of payment.”

Issue: 7545 / 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