header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
14 February 2008 / Dr Jon Robins
Issue: 7308 / Categories: Opinion , Public , Legal services , Community care
printer mail-detail

NLJ Column

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

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

Read All
Sponsored by
NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: When post-breach events rewrite damages claims
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
NLJ this week: Supreme Court redraws unfair prejudice rules
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
NLJ this week: ‘Joe Donor’ ruling exposes dangers of unregulated conception
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
NLJ this week: CILEX warns Mazur ruling must spark reform
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
NLJ this week: Conditional job offers carry hidden risks for employers
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll