header-logo header-logo

05 March 2015
Issue: 7643 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Widespread anger over fees hike

Ministry of Justice survey highlights opposition to rise in court fees

The hotly contested hike in court fees, which will come into force on 9 March, was opposed by the majority of commercial lawyers in the Ministry of Justice’s (MoJ) own survey.

More than 60% think the government’s move to hike court fees by as much as 600%, which was agreed by House of Lords yesterday, will damage the competitiveness of the UK’s legal sector. Commercial lawyers expressed fears that the fees rise will drive business away to courts in other jurisdictions such as New York or Singapore, adding to existing fears over access to justice for individuals and small businesses.

The fees will be raised to 5% of the value of proceedings for money claims worth £10,000 or more, up to a ceiling of £10,000. The fee for a claim for £40,000 is currently £610 but would rise to £2,000, while the fee for a £190,000 claim is currently £1,315 but will rise to £9,500.

Geraldine Elliott, partner at City law firm RPC, says: “If high value cases were less likely to be brought in the UK, this loss could easily outweigh any benefits that fee rises might generate for the UK economy. New York court fees already compare favourably with those in the UK.” However, an MoJ spokesperson said 77 out of 108 respondents said court fees had little or no relevance to their decision to use the English courts, and only two people said court fees were a decisive factor.

The Law Society has launched a judicial review challenge to the hike, arguing the rise will amount to “selling justice” contrary to the principles of Magna Carta. Opposition to the issue has virtually united the legal profession. Bar Council chair Alistair McDonald QC called this week for Court of Protection fees to be exempt from the rise.

Andrew Caplen, president of the Law Society, described the fee rise as “a flat tax on those seeking justice” which will “price the public out of the courts and leave small businesses saddled with debts they are due but unable to afford to recover”.

Justice minister Shailesh Vara said: “It is only fair that wealthy businesses and individuals fighting legal battles should pay more in fees to ease the burden on taxpayers.”

Meanwhile, the Court of Appeal has granted the Law Society the right to appeal the High Court’s ruling that government plans to cut duty solicitor contracts are lawful.

Issue: 7643 / 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