header-logo header-logo

Government ditches plan to hike probate fees

24 April 2017
Issue: 7743 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Probate lawyers have welcomed the government’s decision to drop its plans to hike probate court fees from £155 to as much as £20,000 for larger estates.

The proposal, first announced in February 2016, would have increased the fee from £155 (if done by a solicitor) or £215 (without a solicitor) to a figure on a sliding scale of between £300 and £20,000, depending on the size of the estate. It was to raise about £300m for the courts and tribunals. However, the proposal came under fire from practitioners, professional bodies, charities, judges and members of the public, with probate lawyers arguing it would no longer be a fee for managing an administrative process but a tax on a person’s wealth at death.

Further doubt was cast by cross-party MPs serving on the joint committee on statutory instruments, who suggested in a report last month that the increase could be ultra vires and therefore unlawful, as well as making an unexpected use of the power conferred by the enabling Act.

The proposal has now been abandoned ahead of the June General Election.

Russell-Cooke senior partner, John Gould, who has been advising the Society of Trust and Estate Practitioners (STEP) in relation to the legality of the government’s proposed increases, said: “A key question was whether the charge was legally a fee or actually taxation.

“Our advice was that the charge was in substance taxation. This mattered because the government was proposing to introduce the fee without legislation. It is a long established constitutional principle that taxation can only be imposed by an Act of Parliament.” 

Rebecca Fisher, partner at Russell-Cooke, said: “Given many had considered this was an inheritance tax by the back door it is unsurprising this has been taken off the agenda prior to the General Election. That said I think it will be highly likely that we will see a rise in the probate fees in the future but it remains to be seen whether these will be linked to the value of the estate.”

Alison Lloyd, associate chartered legal executive, Moore Blatch Solicitors, said: “We hope that it is not part of the Tory Party manifesto, and that if it is, then it should not be positioned as an administrative fee but a tax on a person’s estate.

“I have managed hundreds of probate cases and while it is often true that larger estates do require more work, to suggest that the work is always commensurate with the value, or that it is 130 times as much work, is nonsense.”

Elis Gomer, barrister, St John's Buildings, said: “The idea that a significant increase in probate fees should be used to cross-subsidise the rest of the justice system was profoundly unfair and it is deeply troubling that the Ministry of Justice have indicated that they believe that this was not only appropriate but that it should be introduced despite the virtually unanimous condemnation of the policy by professionals.  We can only hope that the delay in introducing this scheme will lead to practitioners’ concerns being addressed.”

The Law Society also welcomed the news, with Law Society president Robert Bourns noting that the proposals would have affected 42% of estates.

Issue: 7743 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll