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—Steven James

Pillsbury—Steven James

Firm boosts London IP capability with high-profile technology sector hire

Clarke Willmott—Michelle Seddon

Clarke Willmott—Michelle Seddon

Private client specialist joins as partner in Taunton office

DWF—Rory White-Andrews

DWF—Rory White-Andrews

Finance and restructuring offering strengthened by partner hire in London

NEWS
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) continues to stir controversy across civil litigation, according to NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School—AKA ‘The insider’
SRA v Goodwin is a rare disciplinary decision where a solicitor found to have acted dishonestly avoided being struck off, says Clare Hughes-Williams of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) imposed a 12-month suspension instead, citing medical evidence and the absence of harm to clients
In their latest Family Law Brief for NLJ, Ellie Hampson-Jones and Carla Ditz of Stewarts review three key family law rulings, including the latest instalment in the long-running saga of Potanin v Potanina
The Asian International Arbitration Centre’s sweeping reforms through its AIAC Suite of Rules 2026, unveiled at Asia ADR Week, are under examination in this week's NLJ by John (Ching Jack) Choi of Gresham Legal
In this week's issue of NLJ, Yasseen Gailani and Alexander Martin of Quinn Emanuel report on the High Court’s decision in Skatteforvaltningen (SKAT) v Solo Capital Partners LLP & Ors [2025], where Denmark’s tax authority failed to recover £1.4bn in disputed dividend tax refunds
back-to-top-scroll