header-logo header-logo

"Disappointing" & "perfunctory" response on fees

11 November 2016
Issue: 7723 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

The Bar Council has blasted the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) over its “disappointing response” to the Justice Committee’s report on Courts and Tribunal Fees.

The Chairman of the Committee also weighed in, criticizing the MoJ for its “perfunctory response”

In its June report, Courts and tribunals fees, the Justice Committee called for employment tribunal fees to be “substantially reduced” and for the three-month time limit for women alleging maternity or pregnancy-based discrimination to be given special consideration. On both points the MoJ said it would respond in due course.

The Justice Committee called on the MoJ not to double the £10,000 cap on civil claims fees without further review. The MoJ said it is currently undertaking research into this point. The Committee called on the MoJ to rescind the increase in the divorce petition fee to £550, and warned it is unwise to propose fee increases to achieve full cost recovery in the immigration and asylum chambers before a review into the impact of employment tribunal fee increases has been published. In response, the MoJ said it does not accept the Committee’s view on the divorce petition fee and disagrees that it is unwise to increase immigration and asylum chambers fees which, it argued, are not comparable to employment tribunal fees.

Law Society president Robert Bourns said: “Recent fee increases should be reversed pending a proper assessment of their effect on access to justice.

“There is a growing imbalance created by fee increases that places the courts out of reach for many small businesses and all but the wealthiest individuals in society.”

Bourns said immigration tribunal fee increases of more than 500% would have a chilling effect on people's ability to pursue appeals, while the MoJ’s own figures show that employment tribunal cases have fallen by 70% since fees increased.

“The court fee increases that have now been adopted were opposed by 90% of respondents to the government consultation, making a mockery of the consultation process, and further questioned by the Justice Select Committee,” he said.

In a sharp rebuke, Chantal-Aimée Doerries QC, Chairman of the Bar, said: “The government seems wedded to the principle that courts should be used as a source of revenue, despite repeated calls for a review and the growing evidence that this approach is effectively pricing people out of justice.

“Hardworking people seeking justice through the courts have been hit with a 600% increase in court fees, a 500% increase in immigration tribunal charges, and charges of up to £1,500 for employment tribunals, but still there has been no impact review of these fees on access to justice.

“Just last week, the TUC’s analysis of official government statistics painted a worrying picture of those facing sexism, racism, disability discrimination at work being priced out of court, and statistics from the Registry Trust show a 19 per cent drop in county court judgments against businesses in the first half of 2016.”

Doerries also called on the MoJ to set a date for its promised review into the impact of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act (LASPO) as a matter of urgency.

Bob Neill MP, Chair of the Justice Committee, said: “It is disappointing that the government response is so negative in respect of the Justice Committee's recommendations; perhaps more concerning is that it is almost offensively perfunctory, appearing to have been rushed out at short notice and giving little evidence of attention paid to the Committee's detailed evidence and analysis. This is all the more surprising given that government has had more than four months to produce this reply. I therefore intend to raise this matter and possible further steps with the Committee at our next meeting.”

Issue: 7723 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

FOIL—Bridget Tatham

FOIL—Bridget Tatham

Forum of Insurance Lawyers elects president for 2026

Gibson Dunn—Robbie Sinclair

Gibson Dunn—Robbie Sinclair

Partner joinslabour and employment practice in London

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

NEWS
Solicitors are installing panic buttons and thumb print scanners due to ‘systemic and rising’ intimidation including death and arson threats from clients
Ministers’ decision to scrap plans for their Labour manifesto pledge of day one protection from unfair dismissal was entirely predictable, employment lawyers have said
Cryptocurrency is reshaping financial remedy cases, warns Robert Webster of Maguire Family Law in NLJ this week. Digital assets—concealable, volatile and hard to trace—are fuelling suspicions of hidden wealth, yet Form E still lacks a section for crypto-disclosure
NLJ columnist Stephen Gold surveys a flurry of procedural reforms in his latest 'Civil way' column
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll