header-logo header-logo

Widespread anger over fees hike

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

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

Birketts—trainee cohort

Birketts—trainee cohort

Firm welcomes new cohort of 29 trainee solicitors for 2025

Keoghs—four appointments

Keoghs—four appointments

Four partner hires expand legal expertise in Scotland and Northern Ireland

Brabners—Ben Lamb

Brabners—Ben Lamb

Real estate team in Yorkshire welcomes new partner

NEWS
Robert Taylor of 360 Law Services warns in this week's NLJ that adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) risks entrenching disadvantage for SME law firms, unless tools are tailored to their needs
The Court of Protection has ruled in Macpherson v Sunderland City Council that capacity must be presumed unless clearly rebutted. In this week's NLJ, Sam Karim KC and Sophie Hurst of Kings Chambers dissect the judgment and set out practical guidance for advisers faced with issues relating to retrospective capacity and/or assessments without an examination
Delays and dysfunction continue to mount in the county court, as revealed in a scathing Justice Committee report and under discussion this week by NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School. Bulk claims—especially from private parking firms—are overwhelming the system, with 8,000 cases filed weekly
Charles Pigott of Mills & Reeve charts the turbulent progress of the Employment Rights Bill through the House of Lords, in this week's NLJ
From oligarchs to cosmetic clinics, strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) target journalists, activists and ordinary citizens with intimidating legal tactics. Writing in NLJ this week, Sadie Whittam of Lancaster University explores the weaponisation of litigation to silence critics
back-to-top-scroll