header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
13 November 2008
Issue: 7345 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Family , Costs
printer mail-detail

Law Reports

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Practice—Family proceedings—Costs

R (on the application of Hillingdon London Borough Council and others) v The Lord Chancellor and another [2008] EWHC 2683 (Admin) [2008] All ER (D) 44 (Nov)

Queen’s Bench Division, Divisional Court, Dyson LJ, Bennett and Pitchford JJ

The increase in court fees for public law child care applications and placement order applications made by the Family Proceedings Fees Order 2008, (SI 2008/1054) and the Magistrates’ Courts Fees Order 2008 (SI 2008/1052) (the orders) is not unlawful.

Michael Supperstone QC and Joanne Clement (instructed by Rajesh Alagh) for the claimants. Sam Grodzinski (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the defendants. The first intervener did not appear and was not represented at the hearing. Lucy Theis QC, Hilton Harrop-Griffiths and Alistair MacDonald for the second intervener.

The proceedings concerned the lawfulness of the increase in court fees for public law child care applications and placement order applications (referred to compendiously as public law family proceedings) made by the orders. Section 31 of the Children

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

Read All
NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

Daniel Burbeary, office managing partner of Michelman Robinson, discusses launching in London, the power of the law, and what the kitchen can teach us about litigating

Wedlake Bell—Rebecca Christie

Wedlake Bell—Rebecca Christie

Firm welcomes partner with specialist expertise in family and art law

Birketts—Álvaro Aznar

Birketts—Álvaro Aznar

Dual-qualified partner joins international private client team

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Driving test fraudsters steer towards jail
Cheating in driving tests is surging—and courts are responding firmly. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort Law School charts a rise in impersonation and tech-assisted fraud, with 2,844 attempts recorded in a year
NLJ this week: Deepfakes demand data law muscle
As AI-generated ‘deepfake’ images proliferate, the law may already have the tools to respond. In NLJ this week, Jon Belcher of Excello Law argues that such images amount to personal data processing under UK GDPR
NLJ this week: 40% penalty for coercive control
In a striking financial remedies ruling, the High Court cut a wife’s award by 40% for coercive and controlling behaviour. Writing in NLJ this week, Chris Bryden and Nicole Wallace of 4 King’s Bench Walk analyse LP v MP [2025] EWFC 473
NLJ this week: Mbappé row spotlights ‘ethics bonuses’
A €60.9m award to Kylian Mbappé has refocused attention on football’s controversial ‘ethics bonus’ clauses. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Estelle Ivanova of Valloni Attorneys at Law examines how such provisions sit within French labour law
NLJ this week: Appeal court reins in ‘wrong defendant’ switcheroo

The Court of Appeal has slammed the brakes on claimants trying to swap defendants after limitation has expired. In Adcamp LLP v Office Properties and BDB Pitmans v Lee [2026] EWCA Civ 50, it overturned High Court rulings that had allowed substitutions under s 35(6)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980, reports Sarah Crowther of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ

Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll