Peers will vote on Wednesday on increasing court fees by as much as 600% as the Ministry of Justice pushes through its last major austerity measure before the general election.
The rise is expected to bring in as much as £120m a year but critics say it could deter claimants and reduce the number of cases. The “enhanced court fees” involve charging users more than the costs of proceedings to subsidise other cases.
The independent cross-bench peer Lord Pannick QC, who has led revolts over legal cuts in the Lords, has put down a motion of regret, deploring the measure as “unfairly and inappropriately” increasing fees so as to damage “access to justice”.
Under the government’s proposals, claims in the civil courts worth more than £10,000 will be subject to the enhanced fees and charged at the rate of 5% of the value of the claim. Divorce cases are exempt from the increases.
The MoJ said the threshold meant 90% of cases would not be affected and that the money would be retained by the courts to invest in better services.
Those opposed to the changes say claims of £200,000 and above will attract fee increases of almost 600%. The Law Society is beginning a judicial review challenge.
Peter Williams, a personal injury partner at the law firm Fieldfisher, said: “The increase in fees will severely limit access to justice on the part of vulnerable people and limit their ability to obtain funds for rehabilitation or settle their cases quickly.”
Geraldine Elliott, a partner at the City law firm RPC, said: “The legal sector is one of Britain’s great success stories, but London as a venue of big-ticket litigation could come under threat from other locations if this fee increase is imposed.”
The Bar Council, which represents barristers in England and Wales, has also criticised the rises. Alistair MacDonald QC, the organisation’s chairman, said: “Studies show that there is price elasticity around the use of courts, so the government knows this will stop some people from using the law to seek the redress they need.
“Litigants in person are also appearing in increasing numbers. The days when it can be expected that both parties will be represented by lawyers are over. These fees will make it that bit harder for people to navigate the system.”
MacDonald added: “It is right that court users make a contribution, but wrong in principle that court fees should be used to generate more money than the courts cost to operate. Everyone benefits from having an effective, accessible system of legal redress, even those who do not actually end up using it.”
The justice minister, Shailesh Vara, said: “Our courts play a critical role and it is vital that the principle of access to justice is preserved by a properly funded service. It is only fair that wealthy businesses and individuals fighting legal battles should pay more in fees to ease the burden on taxpayers.
“These changes to the fees structure won’t apply to 90% of claims, and waivers will also be available for those who cannot afford to pay. We can be rightly proud of our justice system, which many people choose to bring their disputes to because we have some of the best lawyers, judges and legislation, in the world.”
The vote comes after a defeat for the government in the high court over regulations governing when applications for judicial review should be funded. Four legal aid law firms – Ben Hoare Bell Solicitors, Deighton Pierce Glynn, Mackintosh Law and Public Law Solicitors – and the housing charity Shelter had brought the case. They alleged that refusals to fund claims until permission was granted by the court to hear the case was having a “chilling effect” on justice.
