header-logo header-logo

Fees hike U-turn

23 December 2015
Issue: 7681 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Sigh of relief after government decides against further hike to court fees

Practitioners are breathing “a sigh of relief” after the government dropped its plans to raise the £10,000 fee cap for money claims.

In March, the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) introduced a new fee regime with a 5% issue fee for money claims, capped at £10,000, sparking intense opposition from the legal profession.

In July, the government proposed a further hike in court issue fees, with a new cap of £20,000. Again, the legal profession from City firms to sole practitioners mounted a staunch opposition, pointing out that it would not only restrict access to justice for individuals and smaller businesses, but damage the reputation of London as an international centre for legal dispute resolution.

Last month, however, the MoJ abandoned its plans. The cap will therefore remain at £10,000.

David Greene, senior partner at Edwin Coe and NLJ consultant editor, says: “The original hike in applying an ad valorem fee of 5% of the value of the claim was universally opposed but the government went ahead in any event.

“On a £200,000 claim the claimant is required to pay a fee of £10,000, which is a substantial sum for a claimant already out of pocket. No doubt the hike was affecting claimants’ access to the court.

“Many thought that the government would ignore again the even more vigorous opposition to a further increase just months later. We are all relieved that the government chose to listen to the opposition and has abandoned the proposals.

“While practitioners may have had some influence the government may have been particularly concerned about the voices from the City that suggested the increases would affect the multi-billion trade London does as the leading centre in the World for international dispute resolution.”

Jonathan Fozard, partner at City law firm Carter Lemon Camerons (CLC), says: “The March 2015 fee increases have already had the effect of discouraging people and business from bringing meritorious claims in the courts.

“The further increases which the MoJ had been suggesting would only have exacerbated the problem.”

Issue: 7681 / 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