header-logo header-logo

Fee change: all change?

15 September 2017 / Alex Hawley
Issue: 7761 / Categories: Features , Profession
printer mail-detail
nlj_2017_hawley

Alex Hawley reflects on the rise in anti-austerity sentiment & the possible impact of the Unison judgment on civil court fees

You may well remember where you were in March 2015, when the Civil Proceedings and Family Proceedings Fees (Amendment) Order 2015 (SI 2015/576 (L7)) (2015 Order) came into force, increasing fees by as much as 600% for some claims. The Law Society immediately pounced with a pre-action protocol letter stating their intention to judicially review the order on the basis that the new fees were unconstitutional and restricted access to justice.

However, against a background of increased austerity across public services, with eight weeks to go until a general election, and following advice from counsel, the Law Society did not proceed with the judicial review and turned their efforts instead to lobbying.

There has since been a sea-change in attitudes to fees and public funding. In April 2017, three days after calling the general election, the government quietly dropped a steep increase in probate fees only weeks before the new fees order was due to come

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Kennedys—Samson Spanier

Kennedys—Samson Spanier

Commercial disputes practice bolstered by partner hire

Bird & Bird—Emma Radcliffe

Bird & Bird—Emma Radcliffe

London competition team expands with collective actions specialist hire

Hill Dickinson—Chris Williams

Hill Dickinson—Chris Williams

Commercial dispute resolution team in London welcomes partner

NEWS
Judging is ‘more intellectually demanding than any other role in public life’—and far messier than outsiders imagine. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC reflects on decades spent wrestling with unclear legislation, fragile precedent and human fallibility
The long-predicted death of the billable hour may finally be here—and this time, it’s armed with a scythe. In a sweeping critique of time-based billing, Ian McDougall, president of the LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation, argues in this week's NLJ that artificial intelligence has made hourly charging ‘intellectually, commercially and ethically indefensible’
From fake authorities to rent reform, the civil courts have had a busy start to 2026. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ this week, Stephen Gold surveys a procedural landscape where guidance, discretion and discipline are all under strain
Fact-finding hearings remain a fault line in private family law. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Rylatt and Robyn Laye of Anthony Gold Solicitors analyse recent appeals exposing the dangers of rushed or fragmented findings
As the Winter Olympics open in Milan and Cortina, legal disputes are once again being resolved almost as fast as the athletes compete. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Ian Blackshaw of Valloni Attorneys examines the Court of Arbitration for Sport’s (CAS's) ad hoc divisions, which can decide cases within 24 hours
back-to-top-scroll