header-logo header-logo

24 January 2013
Issue: 7545 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Refund for search fee mistake

Administrative oversight at HMCTS

Solicitors could be due a refund following an administrative blunder by the courts.

HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) has admitted incorrectly charging search fees dating back to 1999, and has promised full refunds to all affected.

The mistake relates to the fee paid for searches of the daily register of claims for all High Court jurisdictions apart from company records and bankruptcy proceedings, under Pt 5.4 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Since 26 April 1999, this fee of £5 has not been applicable and should not have been charged.

An HMCTS note explains that the error related to “an inconsistency” between the Civil Procedure Rules and Supreme Court Fees Order 1999 (SI 1999/687) and subsequent fees orders.

It advises its customers that, in order to claim a refund, they will need to provide a receipt for each payment claimed, and fill out a refund fee form. One form per customer is sufficient, and the forms can be picked up from the Rolls Building or the Royal Courts of Justice fees office.

Refunds will be paid by cheque within five weeks of receipt of the correct documentation.

An HMCTS spokesperson said the error was “due to an administrative oversight”.

“HMCTS has ceased charging for this service and taken steps to inform those customers affected of how they can claim a refund. All customers who have paid for searches of the daily register of all High Court jurisdictions since 26 April 1999 are entitled to a refund for the full amount paid, as long as they are able to provide proof of payment.”

Issue: 7545 / Categories: Legal News
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
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
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
back-to-top-scroll