header-logo header-logo

22 April 2016
Issue: 7696 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

500% immigration fees hike

A proposal to hike court fees for immigration and asylum cases by as much as 500% has raised hackles in the legal profession.

Bar Chairman Chantal-Aimée Doerries QC, accused the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) of seeking to “use the courts as a cash cow”.

"The outcome is likely to be that the Ministry won't get its money,” she said. She pointed out that, last year, the MoJ introduced a blanket 5% fee on money claims, with up to £10,000 payable upfront. In March, however, the MoJ revealed in evidence to the Justice Select Committee that the predicted fee income had not matched expectations, partly due to “unpredicted volume changes following introduction of enhanced fees in March 2015”.

Jonathan Smithers, President of the Law Society, said there was a “serious risk” that people could be deterred from challenging incorrect administrative decisions. He said the number of employment tribunal cases has dropped by nearly 70% since June 2013 when fees were increased.

The MoJ consultation proposes increasing the fee for the first-tier Immigration and Asylum tribunal from £80 to £490 for a decision on the papers, and from £140 to £800 for an application for an oral hearing. A fee of £455 would be introduced for permission to appeal to the upper tribunal, where it would cost £350 for permission to appeal if refused by the first-tier tribunal, and £510 for an appeal hearing where permission is granted.

Fee exemptions would be granted to anyone who qualified for legal aid or asylum support; supported children; and the parents of children receiving local authority support.

In a written statement in the House of Lords, Justice minister Dominic Raab said: “We have previously consulted on plans to raise fees for proceedings in the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) in order to recover around 25% of the £84 million annual costs of that Chamber. Having re-assessed the Ministry of Justice’s financial position following the Spending Review, we need to go much further.”

Issue: 7696 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

DWF—David Abbott & Claire Keat

DWF—David Abbott & Claire Keat

Senior appointments in insurance services and commercial services announced

Clyde & Co—Nick Roberts

Clyde & Co—Nick Roberts

Aviation disputes practice strengthened by London partner hire

Ellisons—Marion Knocker

Ellisons—Marion Knocker

Residential property lawyer promoted to partnership

NEWS
he abolition of assured shorthold tenancies and section 21 evictions marks the beginning of a ‘brave new world’ for England’s rental sector, writes Daniel Bacon of Seddons GSC
Stephen Gold’s latest Civil Way column rounds up a flurry of procedural and regulatory changes reshaping housing, alternative dispute resolution (ADR) and personal injury litigation
Patients are being systematically failed by an NHS complaints regime that is opaque, poorly enforced and often stacked against them, argues Charles Davey of The Barrister Group
A wealthy Russian divorce battle has produced a sharp warning about trying to challenge foreign nuptial agreements in the wrong English court. Writing in NLJ this week, Vanessa Friend and Robert Jackson of Hodge Jones & Allen examine Timokhin v Timokhina, where the High Court enforced Russian judgments arising from a prenuptial agreement despite arguments based on the landmark Radmacher decision
An obscure Victorian tort may be heading for an unexpected revival after a significant Privy Council ruling that could reshape liability for dangerous escapes, according to Richard Buckley, barrister and emeritus professor of law at the University of Reading
back-to-top-scroll