header-logo header-logo

01 October 2015
Issue: 7670 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Court fees “serious own goal”

City lawyers send letter to minister of justice highlighting risks of fee hike

City lawyers have fired off an angry letter to the Lord Chancellor, Michael Gove, about proposals to hike court fees.

In a joint letter, the City of London Law Society and Commercial Bar Association warn Gove that he risks driving high-value legal business overseas to New York or Singapore. They argue that the resulting loss in tax revenue will “dwarf” any increase in income from court fees.

In the letter, the lawyers contest the “highly questionable assumption” that higher issue fees will not lead to a decrease in claims being issued, and remind Gove that “UK legal services added £22.6bn or 1.6% of total GDP to the economy in 2013”.

They explain that England, particularly London, does so well because of the dominance of English contract law, which “favours party autonomy” and has clear principles, and because of the reputation of English judicial decisions. However, Singapore, New York, Hong Kong, Dubai and Germany are “serious and active competitors”, and Singapore and New York, the main competitors, already have lower fees.

They brand the proposed fee hike “a serious own-goal” which “will act as a boon to our competitors”. They argue that the fee, paid merely to commence proceedings when most cases settle before any defence is filed, “bears no relationship to services provided” and is “in essence, a tax on civil litigants to pay for the costs of the English family and criminal courts”.

The government’s proposals to hike civil court fees for a second time—in April, they raised fees by as much as 600% in some areas—has attracted the ire of the law Society, Bar Council and several other legal groups and individuals. Last week, Law Society president John Smithers said it was “wrong in principle for the courts to make a profit for the government”, and said there had been no assessment of the impact of the previous increases, which solicitors believe will stop people bringing legitimate cases.

The Ministry of Justice has proposed doubling the cap on court fees to £20,000, or even removing it altogether, on the basis this could generate an extra £25m per year from the courts.

A Ministry of Justice spokesperson says: “Court fees are a small fraction of the overall costs of litigation and only around one in every 200 money claims will be affected by the proposed increases.

"It is right that those who can afford to—such as wealthy individuals or large corporations making very high money claims—should make a bigger contribution so that we have functioning and properly funded courts.”

Issue: 7670 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Kennedys—Milan Devani

Kennedys—Milan Devani

Chief information officer appointment strengthens technology leadership

Maguire Family Law—Hannah Barlow & Sophie Hughes

Maguire Family Law—Hannah Barlow & Sophie Hughes

Firm strengthens Wilmslow team with two solicitor appointments

DWF—Ian Plumley

DWF—Ian Plumley

Londoninsurance and reinsurance practice announces partner appointment

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