header-logo header-logo

19 May 2020
Issue: 7887 / Categories: Legal News , Covid-19 , Immigration & asylum
printer mail-detail

Immigration lawyers oppose fixed fees

Immigration lawyers have accused the government of using coronavirus to ‘rush through’ fee cuts when practitioners can least afford it

Fixed fees for asylum and immigration work are due to be introduced on 8 June, under the Civil Legal Aid (Remuneration) (Amendment) (Coronavirus) Regulations 2020, which were laid this week. This is a temporary measure for one year.

According to the Immigrational Legal Practitioners Association (ILPA), however, ‘the majority of files will exceed the new fixed fee and will therefore lose out financially as a result of this change’. A fee of £627 will be paid for work that would currently attract fees of £700, £1,000, £1,500 and £1,800.

The rates are more generous for lower value cases (for example, a £227 fee would rise to £627).

In a statement this week, ILPA said: ‘It is important to be clear, these changes that are being rolled out on an urgent basis, purportedly due to COVID-19, are not actually related to the pandemic at all.

‘We understand that the urgency is being driven by HMCTS’ desire to have everyone working within the new digital process, however we do not think that this should have been the top priority here, and the overriding desire to rush out that process is having a serious and negative impact on the sector.’

ILPA argued that proper consultation has not taken place, and it should have been able to complete the discussions it was having with the Ministry of Justice about fee structures before any change was made. In the meantime, hourly rates should be paid, ILPA said.

Bar Council chair Amanda Pinto QC said: ‘The new fee structure will result in immigration practitioners continuing to be underpaid for their work. These measures ought not to be implemented.’

However, an MoJ spokesperson said: ‘The new, increased fee structure has been under consideration for some time and reflects the digitalisation of the tribunal system, which has allowed justice to continue to be done during the coronavirus pandemic.

‘There will be a full consultation on these fee changes before they are finalised next year.’

 

Issue: 7887 / Categories: Legal News , Covid-19 , Immigration & asylum
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