The Royal Courts of Justice (RCJ) are set for a makeover if Department for Constitutional Affairs (DCA) proposals to build a new Commercial Court through savings, a private finance initiative, and increases in court fees get the go-ahead.

Meanwhile, a survey this week showed that one-third of solicitors say clients are deterred from legal action because of the prohibitive level of court fees, and that inefficient administration is pushing costs up further.

The Court Service and the DCA are currently considering three court schemes: two envisage the creation of a building for the Commercial, Admiralty and Technology and Construction Courts on the site of the RCJ's Queen's building, and a third blueprint would see only a new Commercial Court built.

Funding would be achieved from savings in the allocation of existing court premises, through a private finance initiative valued at between 70 and 100 million, and by increases in court fees - the scale of which is still the subject of ongoing debate.

The chief executive of the Court Service, Mark Camley, revealed the proposals last week at a London Solicitors Litigation Association conference, attended by the outgoing Lord Mayor of London, barrister Gavyn Arthur, and Law Society President Peter Williamson.

Mr Williamson told the conference that securing the backing of the Treasury for the plans for a new Commercial Court was essential, and encouraged stakeholders to lobby government 'at the highest level' to ensure its success.

Mr Arthur said the law was critical to the success of London's financial services sector and that foreign users of the Commercial Court could decide to go elsewhere if its buildings were inadequate.

The Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer, will consider whether to endorse one of the three plans later this month.

Meanwhile, a third of the 200 solicitors polled by the Law Society's ongoing survey monitoring the effectiveness of the Woolf civil justice reforms said court fees deterred their clients from pursuing actions.

Court errors, lost applications and poor administration were cited as examples of inefficient court administration, which 38% of respondents said had a measurable impact on their cases.

Law Society chief executive Janet Paraskeva said: 'Solicitors are telling us that problems created by under-funding are increasing costs.

Inevitably, this will have serious consequences for people on low incomes and could impede their ability to seek justice.'

By Jeremy Fleming