Plan to charge £350 for Supreme Court documents met with criticism
Litigators have reacted with disappointment to news that the new Supreme Court will charge a minimum fee of £350 to access court documents. Critics have lashed out after news emerged that members of the public wishing to see court records will now face an application fee of £350, with many claiming that the payment requirement will be detrimental to the court's stated aim of greater transparency.
November 10, 2009 at 08:13 AM
2 minute read
Litigators have reacted with disappointment to news that the new Supreme Court will charge a minimum fee of £350 to access court documents.
Critics have lashed out after news emerged that members of the public wishing to see court records will now face an application fee of £350, with many claiming that the payment requirement will be detrimental to the court's stated aim of greater transparency.
The new court – which was launched last month as a replacement for the House of Lords as the final court of appeal in England, Wales and Northern Ireland – is open to the public and features permanent television cameras.
Commenting on the news, CMS Cameron McKenna litigation head Tim Hardy said: "It sounds as an exorbitant fee, which could deter anybody but the wealthy or very committed from looking for information. It seems strange that there should be a fee charged to all applications. If the Supreme Court is going to be an open court, then it is a matter of public record."
The Supreme Court defended its stance, saying that the fee concerns documents that contain sensitive personal and commercial information which parties may not wish to be made public.
A court spokesman also said there has been no change in fee policy and that the same process applies in the Court of Appeal, which charges a £200 fee for document applications.
An Ministry of Justice statement said: "Court rules (made by the President of the Court) provide that an application can be made for access to court records which contain sensitive personal and commercial information. Such applications are subject to a fee, which was up-rated to reflect inflation following a public consultation. The fees were last amended in 2000."
Click here for more on the Supreme Court
Click here to join Legal Week's LinkedIn In-house lawyers group
This content has been archived.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
© 2025 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 AllHSF Defends Bayer on Roundup Class Action as Litigation Comes to an End in Australia
2 minute readNorton Rose Sues South Africa Government Over 'Unreasonable' Ethnicity Score System
3 minute readBirkenstocks: Footwear or Fine Art? German Law Firm SKW Schwarz Steps Up in Court
Freshfields and Quinn Emanuel Face Off in Latest JP Morgan-WeRealize Dispute
2 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Bribery Case Against Former Lt. Gov. Brian Benjamin Is Dropped
- 2‘Extremely Disturbing’: AI Firms Face Class Action by ‘Taskers’ Exposed to Traumatic Content
- 3State Appeals Court Revives BraunHagey Lawsuit Alleging $4.2M Unlawful Wire to China
- 4Invoking Trump, AG Bonta Reminds Lawyers of Duties to Noncitizens in Plea Dealing
- 522-Count Indictment Is Just the Start of SCOTUSBlog Atty's Legal Problems, Experts Say
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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