header-logo header-logo

23 June 2016
Issue: 7704 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Fee hikes attacked by MPs

Justice Select Committee calls on MoJ to release review

MPs have spoken out against fee hikes for court users in the civil and family courts and tribunals.

In a report published last week, the Justice Select Committee called on the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) to release its post-implementation review of employment tribunal fees, abandon plans to double the £10,000 cap on civil court fees, and halt plans to raise divorce fees from £410 to £550.

It noted that the introduction of issue fees and hearing fees for claimants in the employment tribunals led to a drop in the number of cases brought of nearly 70%. It said factors such as fee remission, vulnerability of claimants and equality of arms should be taken into account when setting fee rates.

Chantal-Aimee Doerries QC, Bar chairman, accused the MoJ of taking a “shot in the dark” approach to imposing court and tribunal fees.

“The committee found what we, and others (including the judiciary), had been saying all along: the MoJ’s evidence base for the charges was flimsy, and insufficient time was allowed to assess the impact of other, concurrent changes in the civil justice system. The reality is that employees, small businesses and others who may have a legitimate claim are being denied the chance to pursue it because of fees which they cannot afford.

“The MoJ now has an opportunity to learn from its mistakes and, as the Committee recommends and as we echo, hold off from its latest plans to restrict access to the Immigration & Asylum Tribunal by increasing fees by 500%.”

On the rise in divorce fees, Nigel Shepherd, chair, Resolution, says: “The committee rightly recognises that this rise effectively amounted to a new tax on divorce; and that by raising it, people were being charged around twice what it actually costs to process a divorce petition.”

Issue: 7704 / 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
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
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll