header-logo header-logo

14 December 2020
Categories: Legal News , Costs , Profession , In Court
printer mail-detail

Paper-online fees alignment ‘unfair’

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

Haynes Boone—Jeremy Cross

Haynes Boone—Jeremy Cross

Firm strengthens global fund finance practice with London partner hire.

DWF—Stephen Webb

DWF—Stephen Webb

Partner and head of national planning team appointed

mfg Solicitors—Nick Little

mfg Solicitors—Nick Little

Corporate team expands in Birmingham with partner hire

NEWS
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
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
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

An engagement ring may symbolise romance, but the courts remain decidedly practical about who keeps it after a split, writes Mark Pawlowski, barrister and professor emeritus of property law at the University of Greenwich, in this week's NLJ

Medical reporting organisation fees have become ‘the final battleground’ in modern costs litigation, says Kris Kilsby, costs lawyer at Peak Costs and council member of the Association of Costs Lawyers, in this week's NLJ
back-to-top-scroll