header-logo header-logo

500% immigration fees hike

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

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

Birketts—trainee cohort

Birketts—trainee cohort

Firm welcomes new cohort of 29 trainee solicitors for 2025

Keoghs—four appointments

Keoghs—four appointments

Four partner hires expand legal expertise in Scotland and Northern Ireland

Brabners—Ben Lamb

Brabners—Ben Lamb

Real estate team in Yorkshire welcomes new partner

NEWS
Robert Taylor of 360 Law Services warns in this week's NLJ that adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) risks entrenching disadvantage for SME law firms, unless tools are tailored to their needs
The Court of Protection has ruled in Macpherson v Sunderland City Council that capacity must be presumed unless clearly rebutted. In this week's NLJ, Sam Karim KC and Sophie Hurst of Kings Chambers dissect the judgment and set out practical guidance for advisers faced with issues relating to retrospective capacity and/or assessments without an examination
Delays and dysfunction continue to mount in the county court, as revealed in a scathing Justice Committee report and under discussion this week by NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School. Bulk claims—especially from private parking firms—are overwhelming the system, with 8,000 cases filed weekly
Charles Pigott of Mills & Reeve charts the turbulent progress of the Employment Rights Bill through the House of Lords, in this week's NLJ
From oligarchs to cosmetic clinics, strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) target journalists, activists and ordinary citizens with intimidating legal tactics. Writing in NLJ this week, Sadie Whittam of Lancaster University explores the weaponisation of litigation to silence critics
back-to-top-scroll