Report comment

After having read the judgment, the solution on offer is that the impecunious applicant denied fee remission after having satisfied the relevant criteria and fallen at the even more restrictive internal 'guidance notes used by civil servants to interpret that criteria, is to pay the court fees required to challenge it by way of judicial review.

For those who have an arguable case to place before a tribunal and who cannot afford to do so, then the solution is to find the fees to come to the court and plead poverty.

Is this the best our judiciary can come up with?

The words of (then) Hoffman LJ in Airedale NHS Trust v Bland [1993] 1 All ER 821 @ 850 are apt:

"…The decision of the court should be able to carry conviction with the ordinary person as being based not merely on legal precedent but also upon acceptable ethical values..."

Is this judgment capable of carrying 'conviction' with the ordinary man or woman?

I do not think that it does.