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

Birketts—Nathan Evans

Birketts—Nathan Evans

Commercial and technology team in Cambridgestrengthened by partner hire

Andrew & Andrew Solicitors—Shikha Datta

Andrew & Andrew Solicitors—Shikha Datta

Hampshire firm appoints head of new family department

Latham & Watkins—Sarah Lightdale

Latham & Watkins—Sarah Lightdale

Firm strengthens securities practice with partner return

NEWS

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
back-to-top-scroll