Fears over rising court fees

CIVIL JUSTICE COUNCIL: litigants are paying disproportionate costs to cover system's expenditure

The government policy of recovering the full cost of running the court system from litigants is contrary to the principle of access to justice and should be abandoned, the Civil Justice Council (CJC) argued last week.

In a report on full costs recovery, the CJC - whose chairman is the Master of the Rolls, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers - said it was reasonable that those using the courts should contribute to their running, but slated the fact that fees had risen steeply in recent years and that fees had been introduced to subsidise the system.

The report said current arrangements had led to a situation where litigants paid disproportionate costs to cover court expenditure.

The CJC warned that if fees continued to rise, a vicious circle would be created where litigants would stop using the system, leading to less fee income and further cuts to services.

It suggested that the government should look at excluding judicial salaries and possibly accommodation costs from the process, and should also consider recouping court running costs through fees, but not the actual or opportunity cost of capital investment.

Lord Phillips called for a full review of the way in which courts and judges deliver justice to determine feasible ways of making economies.

'While it is not wrong to require the citizen to pay court fees, access to the civil courts must be seen as providing a social and collective benefit as well as a service to the individual,' he said.

'Fees should be proportionate to the amount at stake.'

A Lord Chancellor's Department spokeswoman said it welcomed the CJC's views, but added that fee increases proposed in a consultation paper in September are the first since April 2000.

'The fees proposed in the paper are based on principles that seek to achieve a balance between access to justice, and recovering the cost of the service provided,' she added.

Paula Rohan