header-logo header-logo

Paper-online fees alignment ‘unfair’

14 December 2020
Categories: Legal News , Costs , Profession , In Court
printer mail-detail
Ministers’ proposals to align online and paper civil court fees are ‘unfair’, ‘unjustifiable’, will ‘damage UK businesses’ and restrict access to justice, the Civil Court Users Association (CCUA) has warned

Robert Thompson, chair of the CCUA (whose membership issue about 85% of all civil money claims), gave a scathing response this week to the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) ‘Consultation on alignment of the fees for online and paper civil money and possession claims’, which ends on 30 December.

According to the MoJ, the alignment would ‘simplify our fee structure’, and raise an estimated £12m-£33m per annum from 2022/23 onwards, while ensuring that those who may not be able to access online services are not charged more for using the paper route. Moreover, it would help fill the financial gap between the annual net fee income of £724m against the £2bn running costs of HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS).

However, Thompson said these figures were ‘misleading’ as they related to the whole service, including family and criminal courts, whereas the proposal was to increase civil claim fees only. He said HMCTS had previously confirmed to the CCUA that, in 2018/19, civil claim fees produced £561m while providing the service cost £475m.

Thompson said: ‘It is not right that court users currently pay more than the service costs, only to then receive a sub-standard service, whilst the additional sums are spent elsewhere.

The highest fee for simply issuing a claim form stands at £10,000, calculated upon the size of the claim. Fees of this size for such a simple procedural step are simply unjustifiable on any basis.’

He warned the proposals would encourage legal action against someone who owes a small amount of money but discourage it where large sums were involved. He said this restriction on access to justice would create extra cost for UK business and, ultimately, the consumer.

Categories: Legal News , Costs , Profession , In Court
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Winckworth Sherwood—Tim Foley

Winckworth Sherwood—Tim Foley

Property litigation practice strengthened by partner hire

Kingsley Napley—Romilly Holland

Kingsley Napley—Romilly Holland

International arbitration team specialist joins the team

Red Lion Chambers—Maurice MacSweeney

Red Lion Chambers—Maurice MacSweeney

Set creates new client and business development role amid growth

NEWS
The rank of King’s Counsel (KC) has been awarded to 96 barristers, and no solicitors, in the latest silk round
Early determination is no longer a novelty in arbitration. In NLJ this week, Gustavo Moser, arbitration specialist lawyer at Lexis+, charts the global embrace of summary disposal powers, now embedded in the Arbitration Act 1996 and mirrored worldwide. Tribunals may swiftly dismiss claims with ‘no real prospect of succeeding’, but only if fairness is preserved
The Ministry of Justice is once again in the dock as access to justice continues to deteriorate. NLJ consultant editor David Greene warns in this week's issue that neither public legal aid nor private litigation funding looks set for a revival in 2026
Civil justice lurches onward with characteristic eccentricity. In his latest Civil Way column, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist, surveys a procedural landscape featuring 19-page bundle rules, digital possession claims, and rent laws he labels ‘bonkers’
Can a chief constable be held responsible for disobedient officers? Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth, professor of public law at De Montfort University, examines a Court of Appeal ruling that answers firmly: yes
back-to-top-scroll