Report comment

Sorry, this is too simplistic. It works on the basis that the value of the case equates to complexity, that's absolutely not the case at all. There are other bizarre anomalies created too, that I'll explain below.

So, a case for non payment of, say two invoices at £249,999 is more complex than a public liability / E.L P.I case with a value of, say £20K?

I had a three day fight over £20k of damages over a private nuisance action earlier in the year, that was contested, and taxing. I've routinely collected sums into six and seven figures that were simple to litigate.

How is that an action is less cost bearing than a simple monies due case for ten times the value, where, in the example above, the work in the Private Nuisance case took masses more preparation than a debt case that simply has a higher amount at stake?

I'm sorry, I just don't get it.

I also have to question, somewhat rhetorically, whether those who practised at the bar who are behind this latest set of proposals (on top of the myriad others) ever received cut back / reduced fees as are now being suggested? I rather suspect not.

Why are costs of litigation now apparently too expensive, after numerous attempts to slash fees, whilst HMCTS at the same time increase court fees to staggering levels (£10,000) for those who are critically injured?

The cost of litigation is too high, mainly because of court fees. I'm acting for a widow on a CFA where I may not get any fees in the event of a loss, yet HMCTS demand £10k from her to start her action? She is having to work to support her child, and earning too much to qualify for an exemption. I'm possibly earning nothing in the event of a loss, and I cannot bankroll the court fee, it's too high.

So, to summarise, legal costs are slashed. They are gambled on a CFA so the public purse isn't affected, solicitors are expected to earn nothing possibly for years of work, yet court fees are increased to ludicrously high levels simply for the privilege of having a case issued - when the same service charges £30 for a low level action. Costs which have been slashed by reason of fixed costs for lower levels, or budgeting in higher value cases need to be capped or cut again, yet court fees remain so high as to prevent a bar to access to justice?