Law Society slams MoJ plans to increase fees in High Court and Court of Appeal

The Law Society has attacked Ministry of Justice plans to increase fees in the High Court and the civil division of the Court of Appeal.

Chancery Lane in particular criticised proposed increases in relation to judicial review as “unreasonable and prohibitive”, predicting that they could prevent claimants accessing justice over unfair Government decisions.

Responding to an MoJ consultation paper on the plans, the Law Society said: “It is essential that litigants are not deterred from accessing the civil justice system by inappropriate fee levels.”

Chancery Lane said it strongly opposed the government's policy of seeking to recover the full cost of progressing cases through civil court fees.

“In our view this undermines access to justice, particularly for people on low incomes,” it said. “Higher court fees represent significant barriers to justice for both individuals and small businesses.”

The Law Society said it believed that a greater share of the cost of the civil justice system should be borne by the public purse, rather than wholly or mainly by litigants.

“Provision by the State of access to redress through the courts for its citizens has been the hallmark of a civilised society,” it argued. “It is regrettably now a diminishing asset in England and Wales.”

Other points made by Chancery Lane included:

• An immediate move to full cost recovery in the High Court and Appeal Court would result in a profit for the Court Service. Fee income in the County Courts is already in surplus;
• The Law Society is concerned about the inter-relationship between fees in the High Court and the County Courts. It said it feared that the next step – if these proposals were implemented – would be to raise County Court fees again to realign them once again with High Court fees;
• The service provided in the courts “continues to decline”. Rather than reducing the MoJ’s subvention, court fees should be hypothecated for reinvestment into the court system;
• There are other ways of tackling any shortfall in funding from fees. “The rising cost of running the courts is largely because the system has not moved with the times.” Chancery Lane said there was scope for considerable savings if investment was made to allow electronic filing of papers via a web based portal. Procedural improvements could also deliver cost savings.

The Law Society added that it was “disappointing that the Ministry of Justice has not sought to offset the impact of these proposed fee increases by looking again at the exemptions available through fee remissions”.

The level at which fee remissions tail off is “far too low to be of any assistance to the majority of individuals – it is below the threshold for eligibility for legal aid”, it pointed out.

On the proposal to increase the fee for permission to apply for judicial review from £60 to £235, Chancery Lane said the rise would undermine the availability of that review to many citizens.

It warned that, for people just above the threshold for qualifying for legal aid and who are not excepted from fees, this would greatly reduce access to justice at the initial gateway.

The Law Society said: “The courts will become accessible only to the wealthy. Those bringing judicial reviews, particularly those relating to asylum and immigration cases, are often the most vulnerable, poor and disadvantaged claimants.

“Increased fees, even if offset by fee exemption provisions, will only add to the hurdles confronting those who need to make applications for relief, often in the most urgent circumstances.”

Chancery Lane pointed out that – taking into account a proposed rise in the fee for continuation of a judicial review – the cost of a JR would increase from the current level of £275 (£60 + £215) to £470 (£235 + £235).

“In our view that increase is unreasonable and prohibitive which may prevent many from accessing justice who might otherwise challenge an unfair Government decision,” it said.

Chancery Lane’s response to the MoJ consultation paper can be viewed here.

Philip Hoult