Senior litigators express outrage over Government's hearing fees proposals
Ministry of Justice's controversial trial fees nothing more than an unnecessary tax, claim concerned litigators
September 05, 2007 at 10:13 PM
3 minute read
Ministry of Justice's controversial trial fees nothing more than an unnecessary tax, claim concerned litigators
Senior figures within the profession are speaking out against trial fees, it has emerged, with many advisers already branding them an unnecessary tax that could lead to the demise of the UK's much-vaunted civil justice system.
A number of leading litigators are outraged after the Government announced plans to introduce controversial hearing fees in a move that has fuelled concerns about the future implementation of daily fees to make the civil courts a self-funding system.
Giles Goodfellow QC of Pump Court Tax Chambers told Legal Week the move risks depriving consumers of a vital service.
He said: "You pay tax, but when you avail yourself of a service that the Government used to provide for free [such as] a core state function to resolve civil dispute, you then have to pay again."
The latest outbursts come after newly-installed Minister of State for Justice Jack Straw forced through the plans using statutory powers in the wake of the Government's latest consultation on civil court fees, which took place between April and June 2007.
The results of that consultation are due to be published on 1 October – the same day that several new court charges are to be introduced, including individual hearing fees of £500 for fast-track cases and £1,000 for multi-track cases.
Clifford Chance partner and London Solicitors Litigation Association president Simon Davis said: "Are we setting out to market English courts as a place where [litigants] should come? The message with court fees is that they are not welcome."
Herbert Smith disputes partner Ted Greeno warned: "It is a vicious circle – if court fees are put up more and more, litigants will be discouraged and then revenue will fall. When the number of claims falls, they put fees up."
After fierce opposition, the Ministry of Justice has now delayed the proposed pilot scheme of its daily court fees programme, which was set to be introduced in October. However, critics warn that the Government has not permanently shelved the plans and could revisit them in the near future.
Lovells dispute resolution partner Graham Huntley said: "The fees being proposed in October are relatively modest – the real point is that the door has been opened and can become wider and wider."
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllBaker McKenzie, Norton Rose & Other Top Litigators Foresee Rise in AI, Data & ESG Disputes
Freshfields Takes on Syria's Brutal Legacy, But Will Victims Ever See Compensation?
5 minute readECJ Ruling Upholds German Ban on Pure Private Equity Investment in Law Firms
4 minute readCanadian Appeal Court Rules Thumbs-Up Emoji Can Constitute a Contract Agreement
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250