header-logo header-logo

24 January 2013
Issue: 7545 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Refund for search fee mistake

Administrative oversight at HMCTS

Solicitors could be due a refund following an administrative blunder by the courts.

HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) has admitted incorrectly charging search fees dating back to 1999, and has promised full refunds to all affected.

The mistake relates to the fee paid for searches of the daily register of claims for all High Court jurisdictions apart from company records and bankruptcy proceedings, under Pt 5.4 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Since 26 April 1999, this fee of £5 has not been applicable and should not have been charged.

An HMCTS note explains that the error related to “an inconsistency” between the Civil Procedure Rules and Supreme Court Fees Order 1999 (SI 1999/687) and subsequent fees orders.

It advises its customers that, in order to claim a refund, they will need to provide a receipt for each payment claimed, and fill out a refund fee form. One form per customer is sufficient, and the forms can be picked up from the Rolls Building or the Royal Courts of Justice fees office.

Refunds will be paid by cheque within five weeks of receipt of the correct documentation.

An HMCTS spokesperson said the error was “due to an administrative oversight”.

“HMCTS has ceased charging for this service and taken steps to inform those customers affected of how they can claim a refund. All customers who have paid for searches of the daily register of all High Court jurisdictions since 26 April 1999 are entitled to a refund for the full amount paid, as long as they are able to provide proof of payment.”

Issue: 7545 / 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