header-logo header-logo

500% immigration fees hike

22 April 2016
Issue: 7696 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

A proposal to hike court fees for immigration and asylum cases by as much as 500% has raised hackles in the legal profession.

Bar Chairman Chantal-Aimée Doerries QC, accused the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) of seeking to “use the courts as a cash cow”.

"The outcome is likely to be that the Ministry won't get its money,” she said. She pointed out that, last year, the MoJ introduced a blanket 5% fee on money claims, with up to £10,000 payable upfront. In March, however, the MoJ revealed in evidence to the Justice Select Committee that the predicted fee income had not matched expectations, partly due to “unpredicted volume changes following introduction of enhanced fees in March 2015”.

Jonathan Smithers, President of the Law Society, said there was a “serious risk” that people could be deterred from challenging incorrect administrative decisions. He said the number of employment tribunal cases has dropped by nearly 70% since June 2013 when fees were increased.

The MoJ consultation proposes increasing the fee for the first-tier Immigration and Asylum tribunal from £80 to £490 for a decision on the papers, and from £140 to £800 for an application for an oral hearing. A fee of £455 would be introduced for permission to appeal to the upper tribunal, where it would cost £350 for permission to appeal if refused by the first-tier tribunal, and £510 for an appeal hearing where permission is granted.

Fee exemptions would be granted to anyone who qualified for legal aid or asylum support; supported children; and the parents of children receiving local authority support.

In a written statement in the House of Lords, Justice minister Dominic Raab said: “We have previously consulted on plans to raise fees for proceedings in the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) in order to recover around 25% of the £84 million annual costs of that Chamber. Having re-assessed the Ministry of Justice’s financial position following the Spending Review, we need to go much further.”

Issue: 7696 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hugh James—Phil Edwards

Hugh James—Phil Edwards

Serious injury teambolstered by high-profile partner hire

Freeths—Melanie Stancliffe

Freeths—Melanie Stancliffe

Firm strengthens employment team with partner hire

DAC Beachcroft—Tim Barr

DAC Beachcroft—Tim Barr

Lawyers’ liability practice strengthened with partner appointment in London

NEWS
Ceri Morgan, knowledge counsel at Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP, analyses the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd, which reshapes the law of fiduciary relationships and common law bribery
The boundaries of media access in family law are scrutinised by Nicholas Dobson in NLJ this week
Reflecting on personal experience, Professor Graham Zellick KC, Senior Master of the Bench and former Reader of the Middle Temple, questions the unchecked power of parliamentary privilege
Geoff Dover, managing director at Heirloom Fair Legal, sets out a blueprint for ethical litigation funding in the wake of high-profile law firm collapses
James Grice, head of innovation and AI at Lawfront, explores how artificial intelligence is transforming the legal sector
back-to-top-scroll