header-logo header-logo

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

500% immigration fees hike

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

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
back-to-top-scroll