Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
With over 30 practice areas, we have all bases covered. Find out how we can help
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Regulatory, business information and analytics solutions that help professionals make better decisions
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Lex Chat is a LexisNexis current affairs podcast sharing insights on topics for the legal profession
Printer Friendly Version
The Senior Judiciary has responded to the ‘Ministry of Justice consultation paper court fees: proposals for reform (Cm 8751)’. The court fees reform proposals are intended to reduce the deficit on the costs of the civil and family court and to contribute to the costs of fee remissions.
This is essentially to be done by increasing the fees payable by those using the civil courts. The senior judiciary have set out their response, focussing on issues including access to justice and the undesired and unintended consequences of these proposals. They call for, among other things, a fully informed debate about some of the issues and policies arising in the proposal.
In essence, the senior judiciary considers it '...difficult to see the merits of proposals which would increase the costs to litigants but provide no tangible benefit to them or the judicial system more generally...' (para 56).
Although the senior judiciary's response was far more detailed, its main concerns included:
What do you think? Do you agree? Have you any thoughts on the proposals? Please comment below.
0330 161 1234