header-logo header-logo

22 January 2015
Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Pressure mounts over court fees proposals

Lawyers have turned up the heat on controversial government plans to hike court fees by 420%—with the Lord Chief Justice, Bar Council and personal injury lawyers expressing concerns.

The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) announced plans in a written statement last week to introduce a fee of 5% of the value of the claim on claims for more than £10,000, with a cap of £10,000. The MoJ raised the maximum fee from £1,670 to £1,920 last April—the proposed cap is therefore an increase of 420%.

In a letter to the Ministry of Justice (MoJ), the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Thomas warned there was “likely to be a disproportionately adverse impact on small and medium sized enterprises and litigants in person”. He notes that court fees have to be paid “up front and in full”, and predicts litigants could be driven from the quicker, cheaper Intellectual Property and Enterprise Court, where costs are capped at £50,000, towards the uncapped high court.

The Bar Council warned the increase would either stop many small businesses—already the victim of late payments from large customers such as supermarkets—from pursuing a claim altogether or land them with a hefty court fee. The Civil Justice Council has also voiced concerns.

The issue has even united claimant and defendant personal injury lawyers—both the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (Apil) and the Forum of Insurance Lawyers (Foil) have raised objections. 

Foil President, Nick Parsons says: “Many individuals and SMEs will struggle to pay the new level of fee to start a claim. 

“Foil also foresees the law of unintended consequences coming into play. This decision has been taken as a revenue-raising measure by the State, yet many of the defendants who will eventually end up footing the bill are themselves public bodies; local authorities and the NHS, for instance.  

“These are institutions that can ill afford such increased costs in these straitened times. The government may end up robbing Peter to pay Paul.”

John Spencer, Apil President, says: “This move is bound to discourage people from making valid claims—people who have every right to make them. 

“This new regime will dictate that some seriously-injured people will be expected to pay £10,000 up front to bring their cases to court, and many simply won’t be able to afford it.”

Alistair MacDonald QC, Bar Council chair, said the plans would effectively take the option of court away from small businesses and would “act as a deterrent for smaller companies to challenge their larger customers”.

The MoJ predicts the fee increase would raise £120m. The deadline for responses to the consultation, Proposals for further reforms to court fees, is 27 February.

 

Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: John McElroy, London Solicitors Litigation Association

NLJ Career Profile: John McElroy, London Solicitors Litigation Association

From first-generation student to trailblazing president of the London Solicitors Litigation Association, John McElroy of Fieldfisher reflects on resilience, identity and the power of bringing your whole self to the law

Clarke Willmott—Elaine Field

Clarke Willmott—Elaine Field

Planning and environment team expands with partner hire in Manchester

Birketts—Barbara Hamilton-Bruce

Birketts—Barbara Hamilton-Bruce

Firm appoints chief operating officer to strengthen leadership team

NEWS
A landmark Supreme Court ruling has underscored the sweeping reach of UK sanctions. In NLJ this week, Brónagh Adams and Harriet Campbell of Penningtons Manches Cooper say the regime is a ‘blunt instrument’ requiring only a factual, not causal, link to restricted goods
Fraud claims are surging, with England and Wales increasingly the forum of choice for global disputes. Writing in NLJ this week, Jon Felce of Cooke, Young & Keidan reports claims have risen sharply, with fraud now a major share of litigation and costing billions worldwide
Litigators digesting Mazur are being urged to tighten oversight and compliance. In his latest 'Insider' column for NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School provides a cut out and keep guide to the ruling’s core test: whether an unauthorised individual is ‘in truth acting on behalf of the authorised individual’
Conflicting county court rulings have left landlords uncertain over whether they can force entry after tenants refuse access. In this week's NLJ, Edward Blakeney and Ashpen Rajah of Falcon Chambers outline a split: some judges permit it under CPR 70.2A, others insist only Parliament can authorise such powers
A wave of scandals has reignited debate over misconduct in public office, criticised as unclear and inconsistently applied. Writing in NLJ this week, Alice Lepeuple of WilmerHale says the offence’s ‘vagueness, overbreadth & inconsistent deployment’ have undermined confidence
back-to-top-scroll