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

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

Pillsbury—Peter O’Hare

Pillsbury—Peter O’Hare

Partner hire bolstersprivate capital and global aviation finance offering

Morae—Carla Mendy

Morae—Carla Mendy

Digital and business solutions firm appoints chief operating officer

Twenty Essex—Clementine Makower & Stephen Du

Twenty Essex—Clementine Makower & Stephen Du

Set welcomes two experienced juniors as new tenants

NEWS
The High Court’s decision in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys has thrown the careers of experienced CILEX litigators into jeopardy, warns Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers in NLJ this week
Sir Brian Leveson’s claim that there is ‘no right to jury trial’ erects a constitutional straw man, argues Professor Graham Zellick KC in NLJ this week. He argues that Leveson dismantles a position almost no-one truly holds, and thereby obscures the deeper issue: the jury’s place within the UK’s constitutional tradition
Why have private prosecutions surged despite limited data? Niall Hearty of Rahman Ravelli explores their rise in this week's NLJ 
The public law team at Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer surveys significant recent human rights and judicial review rulings in this week's NLJ
In this week's NLJ, Mary Young of Kingsley Napley examines how debarring orders, while attractive to claimants seeking swift resolution, can complicate trials—most notably in fraud cases requiring ‘particularly cogent’ proof
back-to-top-scroll