header-logo header-logo

Court fees “serious own goal”

01 October 2015
Issue: 7670 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

City lawyers send letter to minister of justice highlighting risks of fee hike

City lawyers have fired off an angry letter to the Lord Chancellor, Michael Gove, about proposals to hike court fees.

In a joint letter, the City of London Law Society and Commercial Bar Association warn Gove that he risks driving high-value legal business overseas to New York or Singapore. They argue that the resulting loss in tax revenue will “dwarf” any increase in income from court fees.

In the letter, the lawyers contest the “highly questionable assumption” that higher issue fees will not lead to a decrease in claims being issued, and remind Gove that “UK legal services added £22.6bn or 1.6% of total GDP to the economy in 2013”.

They explain that England, particularly London, does so well because of the dominance of English contract law, which “favours party autonomy” and has clear principles, and because of the reputation of English judicial decisions. However, Singapore, New York, Hong Kong, Dubai and Germany are “serious and active competitors”, and Singapore and New York, the main competitors, already have lower fees.

They brand the proposed fee hike “a serious own-goal” which “will act as a boon to our competitors”. They argue that the fee, paid merely to commence proceedings when most cases settle before any defence is filed, “bears no relationship to services provided” and is “in essence, a tax on civil litigants to pay for the costs of the English family and criminal courts”.

The government’s proposals to hike civil court fees for a second time—in April, they raised fees by as much as 600% in some areas—has attracted the ire of the law Society, Bar Council and several other legal groups and individuals. Last week, Law Society president John Smithers said it was “wrong in principle for the courts to make a profit for the government”, and said there had been no assessment of the impact of the previous increases, which solicitors believe will stop people bringing legitimate cases.

The Ministry of Justice has proposed doubling the cap on court fees to £20,000, or even removing it altogether, on the basis this could generate an extra £25m per year from the courts.

A Ministry of Justice spokesperson says: “Court fees are a small fraction of the overall costs of litigation and only around one in every 200 money claims will be affected by the proposed increases.

"It is right that those who can afford to—such as wealthy individuals or large corporations making very high money claims—should make a bigger contribution so that we have functioning and properly funded courts.”

Issue: 7670 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Partner joins family law team inLondon

Jackson Lees Group—five promotions

Jackson Lees Group—five promotions

Private client division announces five new partners

Taylor Wessing—Max Millington

Taylor Wessing—Max Millington

Banking and finance team welcomes partner in London

NEWS
Transferring anti-money laundering (AML) and counter-terrorism financing supervision to the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) could create extra paperwork and increase costs for clients, lawyers have warned 
In this week's NLJ, Bhavini Patel of Howard Kennedy LLP reports on Almacantar v De Valk [2025], a landmark Upper Tribunal ruling extending protection for leaseholders under the Building Safety Act 2022
Writing in NLJ this week, Hanna Basha and Jamie Hurworth of Payne Hicks Beach dissect TV chef John Torode’s startling decision to identify himself in a racism investigation he denied. In an age of ‘cancel culture’, they argue, self-disclosure can both protect and imperil reputations
As he steps down as Chancellor of the High Court, Sir Julian Flaux reflects on over 40 years in law, citing independence, impartiality and integrity as guiding principles. In a special interview with Grania Langdon-Down for NLJ, Sir Julian highlights morale, mentorship and openness as key to a thriving judiciary
Dinsdale v Fowell is a High Court case entangling bigamy, intestacy and modern family structures, examined in this week's NLJ by Shivi Rajput of Stowe Family Law
back-to-top-scroll