header-logo header-logo

18 March 2016
Issue: 7692 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Sudden divorce fee hike slammed

Family lawyers have hit out at the Ministry of Justice’s (MoJ) “scandalous” decision to raise divorce court fees by more than one third.

The fees increased by 34%, from £410 to £550, on Monday. The Ministry of Justice consulted on proposals to make the increase last summer, but family lawyers only learned last week that the hike would go ahead.

Camilla Fusco, partner at Anthony Gold Solicitors, says the increase will be “a hugely unpopular move with people about to divorce and family lawyers”.

She says it will be “unaffordable for many and impossible to justify in terms of the actual cost to the court service. Divorce centres were introduced last year to make savings and speed up the divorce process.

“To make matters worse, no warning has been given of the new fee coming into effect which will cause confusion and delay with many petitions likely to be held up due to the wrong fee having been paid. It has also made it impossible to file petitions before the date of the increase.”

Jo Edwards, chair of Resolution, says: “Divorce is not a ‘choice to litigate’—it’s a necessary part of the legal process to bring a relationship to an end.

“Whether people mediate, negotiate their own outcome or go to court, they have to pay the divorce petition fee. The actual cost of the administrative process has been shown to be £270, meaning that at new rates the MoJ is making a profit of more than 100%—in effect, levying a divorce tax.

“The government should have waited until the Justice Select Committee, who are currently holding an inquiry into court fees, had published their findings. Instead, the way in which this has been gone about, with no formal consultation or announcement, demonstrates a shocking lack of transparency from government.

“The manner in which they’re implementing this increase, by calling courts [a week before] and instructing them to charge more from Monday, is not how a responsible government department should act.”

Simon Blain, partner at Penningtons Manches, says: “The Ministry of Justice has announced a very significant hike in the fee for issuing divorce proceedings to £550 at extremely short notice and without consultation. The 34% increase was announced on 17 March and will take effect from 21 March, meaning that very few couples will be able to start proceedings before the fees rise. 

All couples going through divorce have to pay the fee, regardless of whether they are able to reach an amicable agreement about their finances and arrangements for the children. Two thirds of petitioners are women, who will be disproportionately affected by this fee increase.”

Issue: 7692 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

DWF—David Abbott & Claire Keat

DWF—David Abbott & Claire Keat

Senior appointments in insurance services and commercial services announced

Clyde & Co—Nick Roberts

Clyde & Co—Nick Roberts

Aviation disputes practice strengthened by London partner hire

Ellisons—Marion Knocker

Ellisons—Marion Knocker

Residential property lawyer promoted to partnership

NEWS
he abolition of assured shorthold tenancies and section 21 evictions marks the beginning of a ‘brave new world’ for England’s rental sector, writes Daniel Bacon of Seddons GSC
Stephen Gold’s latest Civil Way column rounds up a flurry of procedural and regulatory changes reshaping housing, alternative dispute resolution (ADR) and personal injury litigation
Patients are being systematically failed by an NHS complaints regime that is opaque, poorly enforced and often stacked against them, argues Charles Davey of The Barrister Group
A wealthy Russian divorce battle has produced a sharp warning about trying to challenge foreign nuptial agreements in the wrong English court. Writing in NLJ this week, Vanessa Friend and Robert Jackson of Hodge Jones & Allen examine Timokhin v Timokhina, where the High Court enforced Russian judgments arising from a prenuptial agreement despite arguments based on the landmark Radmacher decision
An obscure Victorian tort may be heading for an unexpected revival after a significant Privy Council ruling that could reshape liability for dangerous escapes, according to Richard Buckley, barrister and emeritus professor of law at the University of Reading
back-to-top-scroll