header-logo header-logo

Fee remission: the new legal aid?

11 September 2014 / Peter Thompson KC
Issue: 7621 / Categories: Opinion , Legal aid focus , Legal services
printer mail-detail
coverimage_0

Could fee remission mitigate the legal aid drought? Peter Thompson QC offers some tips

Denying a litigant access to a lawyer is to deny him access to justice. Every lawyer knows that. But we now have another impediment to justice that is becoming increasingly prominent—payment of the court fee. This requirement now runs across all civil litigation in the courts and also the employment tribunals. It is not chicken feed. Take claims within the small claims limit. A claimant owed £3,001 has to pay £540 for a day in court and for a claim of £5,001 the levy is £790. And the defendant with a judgment in default has to act promptly not just to apply to set it aside but also to get £155 together to pay Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunal Service.

Civil legal aid used to cover payment of the fees as part of the government-funded service. But today almost all the funding has been withdrawn for contract cases: all that remains is a litigation subsidy

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—Lord Garnier KC

Pillsbury—Lord Garnier KC

Appointment of former Solicitor General bolsters corporate investigations and white collar practice

Hall & Wilcox—Nigel Clark

Hall & Wilcox—Nigel Clark

Firm strengthens international strategy with hire of global relations consultant

Slater Heelis—Sylviane Kokouendo & Shazia Ashraf

Slater Heelis—Sylviane Kokouendo & Shazia Ashraf

Partner and associate join employment practice

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll