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
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll