header-logo header-logo

05 March 2015
Issue: 7643 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Widespread anger over fees hike

Ministry of Justice survey highlights opposition to rise in court fees

The hotly contested hike in court fees, which will come into force on 9 March, was opposed by the majority of commercial lawyers in the Ministry of Justice’s (MoJ) own survey.

More than 60% think the government’s move to hike court fees by as much as 600%, which was agreed by House of Lords yesterday, will damage the competitiveness of the UK’s legal sector. Commercial lawyers expressed fears that the fees rise will drive business away to courts in other jurisdictions such as New York or Singapore, adding to existing fears over access to justice for individuals and small businesses.

The fees will be raised to 5% of the value of proceedings for money claims worth £10,000 or more, up to a ceiling of £10,000. The fee for a claim for £40,000 is currently £610 but would rise to £2,000, while the fee for a £190,000 claim is currently £1,315 but will rise to £9,500.

Geraldine Elliott, partner at City law firm RPC, says: “If high value cases were less likely to be brought in the UK, this loss could easily outweigh any benefits that fee rises might generate for the UK economy. New York court fees already compare favourably with those in the UK.” However, an MoJ spokesperson said 77 out of 108 respondents said court fees had little or no relevance to their decision to use the English courts, and only two people said court fees were a decisive factor.

The Law Society has launched a judicial review challenge to the hike, arguing the rise will amount to “selling justice” contrary to the principles of Magna Carta. Opposition to the issue has virtually united the legal profession. Bar Council chair Alistair McDonald QC called this week for Court of Protection fees to be exempt from the rise.

Andrew Caplen, president of the Law Society, described the fee rise as “a flat tax on those seeking justice” which will “price the public out of the courts and leave small businesses saddled with debts they are due but unable to afford to recover”.

Justice minister Shailesh Vara said: “It is only fair that wealthy businesses and individuals fighting legal battles should pay more in fees to ease the burden on taxpayers.”

Meanwhile, the Court of Appeal has granted the Law Society the right to appeal the High Court’s ruling that government plans to cut duty solicitor contracts are lawful.

Issue: 7643 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Kennedys—Milan Devani

Kennedys—Milan Devani

Chief information officer appointment strengthens technology leadership

Maguire Family Law—Hannah Barlow & Sophie Hughes

Maguire Family Law—Hannah Barlow & Sophie Hughes

Firm strengthens Wilmslow team with two solicitor appointments

DWF—Ian Plumley

DWF—Ian Plumley

Londoninsurance and reinsurance practice announces partner appointment

NEWS
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
back-to-top-scroll