Paying for the privilege

This is an unashamedly civil, non-family comment on the approach of the Ministry
of Justice (MoJ) to its court fee review. The new fee regime is now in force, hot on the heels (according to the most recent statistics) of a 71 per cent reduction in claims to employment tribunals following the introduction of tribunal fees. Of course, fees have been part
of civil litigation for a long time, but the expectation is that the new regime will drive many away from the court process
and deny them access to justice.

In the ministerial foreword
to the consultation document Court fees: Proposals for reform, Shailesh Vara identified a shortfall in the civil and family court budget of around £120m.
The stated aim, he said, was to ensure that the civil court system paid its way. Later in the review document, reference was made to an assessment that had been undertaken on the potential impact that the fee increase might have on the volume
of cases. Remarkably, this 'quantatitive' assessment was based on a total of 18 telephone interviews - 14 with civil lawyers and four with family lawyers.
Also in the review document
was a reference to research on commercial dispute resolution undertaken by the School of International Arbitration at Queen Mary University - more
on this later.

In January 2015, the government issued its response to the comments received
during the consultation process. Again, we were blessed with a ministerial foreword by Mr Vara. Let me quote: 'I am proud that we live in a country which operates under the rule of law, and where we have such a strong tradition
of access to justice. We have some of the finest judges and access to some of the best legal services in the world. That
is why so many people and organisations choose to bring their disputes here.'

Here, in the opening paragraph, is arguably the
most important point. The one to grab our attention. The one explaining why our everyday clients are going to have to come up with a further £120m
in court fees to access justice.

Remember the research
I referred to earlier? Well,
its conclusion was that ' the commercial courts in England and Wales, housed in the Rolls Building, occupy a competitive position overall against most
of the alternative jurisdictions examined'.

And there (at least in my view) you have it. This has much less to do with the civil court paying its way generally than it does with trying to maintain London as an international arbitration and mediation centre. The taxpayer, and we mere (out of London) practitioners, are paying for that privilege. SJ