header-logo header-logo

14 February 2008 / Dr Jon Robins
Issue: 7308 / Categories: Opinion , Public , Legal services , Community care
printer mail-detail

NLJ Column

Hikes in court fees will only serve to undermine access to justice, says Jon Robins

It’s easy to characterise the access to justice debate as being all about the problems bedevilling legal aid. But that, of course, isn’t the whole story—far from it. HM Courts Service (HMCS) is currently consulting on the rather dry subject of court fees. Informing the Public Law Family Fees Consultation Paper is a superficially attractive argument that the courts should pay their own way. This isn’t an unreasonable proposition, surely? If the Halifax Building Society wants to repossess your house, why shouldn’t they pay up front for the privilege? Childcare proceedings cost the courts a whopping £35m and the government is proposing that social services departments meet the “full cost” through court fees of £4,000 (currently, only £150) and £4,825 if a case goes to a full hearing.

 
ILLOGICAL FEES
A couple of weeks ago, District Judge Nick Crichton opened a pioneering specialist family drug and alcohol court in London. It’s a ground breaking project based
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

Keystone Law—Milena Szuniewicz-Wenzel & Ian Hopkinson

Keystone Law—Milena Szuniewicz-Wenzel & Ian Hopkinson

International arbitration team strengthened by double partner hire

Coodes Solicitors—Pam Johns, Rachel Pearce & Bradley Kaine

Coodes Solicitors—Pam Johns, Rachel Pearce & Bradley Kaine

Firm celebrates trio holding senior regional law society and junior lawyers division roles

Michelman Robinson—Sukhi Kaler

Michelman Robinson—Sukhi Kaler

Partner joins commercial and business litigation team in London

NEWS
The Legal Action Group (LAG)—the UK charity dedicated to advancing access to justice—has unveiled its calendar of training courses, seminars and conferences designed to support lawyers, advisers and other legal professionals in tackling key areas of public interest law
Refusing ADR is risky—but not always fatal. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed and Sanjay Dave Singh of the University of Leicester analyse Assensus Ltd v Wirsol Energy Ltd: despite repeated invitations to mediate, the defendant stood firm, made a £100,000 Part 36 offer and was ultimately ‘wholly vindicated’ at trial
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
back-to-top-scroll