header-logo header-logo

Law Reports

13 November 2008
Issue: 7345 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Family , Costs
printer mail-detail

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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

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