Sigh of relief after government decides against further hike to court fees
Practitioners are breathing “a sigh of relief” after the government dropped its plans to raise the £10,000 fee cap for money claims.
In March, the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) introduced a new fee regime with a 5% issue fee for money claims, capped at £10,000, sparking intense opposition from the legal profession.
In July, the government proposed a further hike in court issue fees, with a new cap of £20,000. Again, the legal profession from City firms to sole practitioners mounted a staunch opposition, pointing out that it would not only restrict access to justice for individuals and smaller businesses, but damage the reputation of London as an international centre for legal dispute resolution.
Last month, however, the MoJ abandoned its plans. The cap will therefore remain at £10,000.
David Greene, senior partner at Edwin Coe and NLJ consultant editor, says: “The original hike in applying an ad valorem fee of 5% of the value of the claim was universally opposed but the government went ahead in any event.
“On a £200,000 claim the claimant is required to pay a fee of £10,000, which is a substantial sum for a claimant already out of pocket. No doubt the hike was affecting claimants’ access to the court.
“Many thought that the government would ignore again the even more vigorous opposition to a further increase just months later. We are all relieved that the government chose to listen to the opposition and has abandoned the proposals.
“While practitioners may have had some influence the government may have been particularly concerned about the voices from the City that suggested the increases would affect the multi-billion trade London does as the leading centre in the World for international dispute resolution.”
Jonathan Fozard, partner at City law firm Carter Lemon Camerons (CLC), says: “The March 2015 fee increases have already had the effect of discouraging people and business from bringing meritorious claims in the courts.
“The further increases which the MoJ had been suggesting would only have exacerbated the problem.”
