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

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

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

West End firm strengthens employment and immigration team with partner hire

JMW—Belinda Brooke

JMW—Belinda Brooke

Employment and people solutions offering boosted by partner hire

NEWS

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

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
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
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
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
back-to-top-scroll