Judiciary state that MoJ's research is "clearly inadequate"
Senior judges have spoken out about proposals to increase court fees.
In a blistering 19-page riposte to the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) consultation, Court fees: proposals for reform, published in December, the senior judiciary said the proposals were based on “inadequate” evidence and misconceptions, and would adversely affect access to justice.
Taken together, the civil and family courts took in £500m in fees in 2012/13 and spent £625m. The MoJ proposals aim to place the courts on a “solid financial footing”, with fees raised in a number of areas, such as high-value claims pursued by wealthy litigants, to make up the shortfall.
However, the senior judiciary pointed out that the civil courts are self-financing while the family courts are not, and there is “no good reason” to treat them as a single system.
They said the MoJ’s claim that court fees as a secondary consideration for those considering litigation was based on “clearly inadequate” research that consisted of 18 phone calls focusing on debt recovery litigation.
The proposals could lead to situations, for example, where a debtor would have to pay more than their debt, the interest and the true costs of recovery proceedings in order to finance another part of the court system.
In the High Court last year, half of all cases were brought by small to medium sized businesses, they said.
“Is it right that parties in civil proceedings, many of whom will not have money to spare, should subsidise proceedings between divorcing couples, still less proceedings for the protection of children?
“If, as all agree, it is essential in the public interest to provide a family justice system, and it cannot be fully self-financing, should the cost be found from society at large or from a charge, essentially by way of taxation, on those who need to bring claims in the civil courts?”
