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

Myers & Co—Jen Goodwin

Myers & Co—Jen Goodwin

Head of corporate promoted to director

Boies Schiller Flexner—Lindsay Reimschussel

Boies Schiller Flexner—Lindsay Reimschussel

Firm strengthens international arbitration team with key London hire

Corker Binning—Priya Dave

Corker Binning—Priya Dave

FCA contentious financial regulation lawyer joins the team as of counsel

NEWS
Social media giants should face tortious liability for the psychological harms their platforms inflict, argues Harry Lambert of Outer Temple Chambers in this week’s NLJ
The Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024—once heralded as a breakthrough—has instead plunged leaseholders into confusion, warns Shabnam Ali-Khan of Russell-Cooke in this week’s NLJ
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has now confirmed that offering a disabled employee a trial period in an alternative role can itself be a 'reasonable adjustment' under the Equality Act 2010: in this week's NLJ, Charles Pigott of Mills & Reeve analyses the evolving case law
Caroline Shea KC and Richard Miller of Falcon Chambers examine the growing judicial focus on 'cynical breach' in restrictive covenant cases, in this week's issue of NLJ
Ian Gascoigne of LexisNexis dissects the uneasy balance between open justice and confidentiality in England’s civil courts, in this week's NLJ. From public hearings to super-injunctions, he identifies five tiers of privacy—from fully open proceedings to entirely secret ones—showing how a patchwork of exceptions has evolved without clear design
back-to-top-scroll