header-logo header-logo

Widespread anger over fees hike

05 March 2015
Issue: 7643 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Ministry of Justice survey highlights opposition to rise in court fees

The hotly contested hike in court fees, which will come into force on 9 March, was opposed by the majority of commercial lawyers in the Ministry of Justice’s (MoJ) own survey.

More than 60% think the government’s move to hike court fees by as much as 600%, which was agreed by House of Lords yesterday, will damage the competitiveness of the UK’s legal sector. Commercial lawyers expressed fears that the fees rise will drive business away to courts in other jurisdictions such as New York or Singapore, adding to existing fears over access to justice for individuals and small businesses.

The fees will be raised to 5% of the value of proceedings for money claims worth £10,000 or more, up to a ceiling of £10,000. The fee for a claim for £40,000 is currently £610 but would rise to £2,000, while the fee for a £190,000 claim is currently £1,315 but will rise to £9,500.

Geraldine Elliott, partner at City law firm RPC, says: “If high value cases were less likely to be brought in the UK, this loss could easily outweigh any benefits that fee rises might generate for the UK economy. New York court fees already compare favourably with those in the UK.” However, an MoJ spokesperson said 77 out of 108 respondents said court fees had little or no relevance to their decision to use the English courts, and only two people said court fees were a decisive factor.

The Law Society has launched a judicial review challenge to the hike, arguing the rise will amount to “selling justice” contrary to the principles of Magna Carta. Opposition to the issue has virtually united the legal profession. Bar Council chair Alistair McDonald QC called this week for Court of Protection fees to be exempt from the rise.

Andrew Caplen, president of the Law Society, described the fee rise as “a flat tax on those seeking justice” which will “price the public out of the courts and leave small businesses saddled with debts they are due but unable to afford to recover”.

Justice minister Shailesh Vara said: “It is only fair that wealthy businesses and individuals fighting legal battles should pay more in fees to ease the burden on taxpayers.”

Meanwhile, the Court of Appeal has granted the Law Society the right to appeal the High Court’s ruling that government plans to cut duty solicitor contracts are lawful.

Issue: 7643 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
A Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruling has reopened debate on the availability of ‘user damages’ in competition claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Edward Nyman of Hausfeld explains how the CAT allowed Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen’s alternative damages case against Meta to proceed, rejecting arguments that such damages are barred in competition law
back-to-top-scroll