Lexis®Library update: In its response, the CJC does not support the proposal to align court fees and believes it will have ‘an adverse impact on access to justice’ by decreasing the number of individuals who are willing and able to bring their disputes to court.
The CJC also explains how the fee proposals undermine the government’s objectives for the HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) Reform Programme and the value of digital legal processes. As a key benefit of online processes is resolving claims at a lower cost, CJC believes this ‘financial dividend should be enjoyed not just by taxpayers, but also by litigants using the system.’ The practical effects of the fee proposals are also considered by the CJC and the behavioural assumptions behind the proposed forms are questioned.
Key points from the response include:
• acknowledgement that accessible courts benefit all individuals and not just the individual litigants using them
• the common law right of access to justice will be breached where financial barriers, such as court fees, are imposed which render litigation unaffordable to members of the population or economically irrational
• a key purpose behind the HMCTS Reform Programme is to increase the accessibility of the courts and make them easier to navigate for users. It was never the vision of the programme that the financial savings achieved by online processes would benefit the public purse and not the litigants who use them
• the government’s belief that lower fees have achieved their purpose cannot be justified
• the CJC acknowledges there are equality concerns regarding the higher fee litigants must pay for paper processes, when they are unable to use online services. However, this can be dealt with through digital assistance initiatives and/or partial fee remissions. Additionally, only 10% of court users use paper processes for civil money claims in preference to online processes
