Our website uses cookies to store information on your computer. You may delete and block all cookies from this site, but parts of the site will not work as a result. Find out more about how we use cookies.
(Accept cookies and do not show this message again)
Shout99 - News matters for freelancers
Search Shout99 - News matters for freelancers
(Advanced Search)
   Join Shout99  About Shout99   Sitemap   Contact Shout99 16th Apr 2024
Forgot your password?
Shout99 - Freelancers, FO35, Section 660
New Users Click Here
Shout99 - Freelancers, FO35, Section 660
Shout99 - Freelancers, FO35, Section 660
Front Page
News...
Freelancers' Shop...
Ask an Expert...
Letters
Direct Contracts
Press Links
Question Time
The Clubhouse
Conference Hall...
News from Partners
Accountants

Login
Sitemap

Business Links

Shout99 - Freelancers, FO35, Section 660

Freelancers' Shop

Personal Financial Services
from ContractorFinancials

Mortgages

Pensions

ISAs

Income protection

... and more special offers for Shout99 readers in the Freelancers' Shop

Shout99 - Freelancers, FO35, Section 660
  
Shout99 - Freelancers, FO35, Section 660

News for the
Construction Industry

Hardhatter.com - News for small businesses in the construction industry

Powered by
Powered by Novacaster
Advertisement
Cogent

Court fee rise will disadvantage small firms
by Susie Hughes at 11:39 25/09/15 (News on Business)
Wealthy individuals and big business will have the upper hand in court proceedings if further increases in court fees get the go ahead under plans announced by the Ministry of Justice, the Bar Council has warned.
The barristers representative body, The Bar Council, warned that the higher costs of bringing court proceedings will cause a greater imbalance where one party is wealthier than the other.
The Bar Council says that the richer party will have a stronger bargaining position in any settlement negotiations, and could simply refuse to settle the case, knowing that the weaker party would be unable afford to take the case to court because of the high fees.

These problems will be faced by small businesses chasing late payments from bigger business and is likely to lead to an increase in the number of people attempting to represent themselves in court.

Advertisement
Alistair MacDonald QC, Chairman of the Bar, said: "It goes against every principle of justice that one party should have an unfair advantage over the other in a court case.

"Further court fee rises will mean that wealthy individuals or businesses immediately have an advantage if they find themselves facing a claim from someone of limited means such as a small business facing cash-flow problems, and that advantage will have nothing to do with the merits of their case.

"The wealthier party is in a stronger position. The poorer party is either priced out of court or makes an attempt to represent themselves, which not only slows the court process down, but leaves them in a weak position against the other party in the case."

Following the introduction of new fees in March this year, the cost of starting a case was five per cebt of the value of the claim. This value was capped at £200,000 making the maximum fee payable £10,000.

One of the proposals is to remove this cap entirely. By way of example, a family making a legitimate claim against insurers for the value of their home, which could easily exceed £600,000, would have to find at least £30,000 just to launch court proceedings.

Alistair MacDonald QC said: "Since March, anyone bringing a money claim to court, whether that is for an injury or any other valid reason, could face a fee of up to £10,000. That is bad enough, but under these new proposals, court fees could be unlimited.

"Very few individuals or small businesses have tens of thousands of pounds sitting there in the petty cash box. We opposed those initial court fee increases and we oppose these too. The impact on access to justice of the original court fee rise in March has still to be assessed, and yet further rises are already being proposed. It is not even clear yet if the initial increases have raised any extra revenue.

"The very least that the Government should have done was to wait until the full effects of the earlier rises had been evaluated. By rushing into the proposals for even higher fees, the risk is that an even greater number of worthy claimants will be denied access to justice without any benefit to the Treasury."

--
If you wish to comment on this article, please log in and use the Reply button below. Registering is free and easy - see 'Join Shout99'.
-
Susie Hughes © Shout99 2015

Printer Version

Mail this to a friend

Copyright 1999-2018, Shout99.com | All Rights Reserved
Privacy Notice and Terms of Use
 

Advertisements
advert
advert
advert
advert