THE DANGERS OF NOT PAYING THE CORRECT COURT FEE: CASES BARRED BY LIMITATION BECAUSE WRONG COURT FEE WAS PAID

One Response

1. 

   Anon · January 7, 2016 at 09:33:37 · →

   An ill thought out decision with massive ramifications because the decision is not case specific.

   Solicitors won’t take on cases on a CFA basis anywhere near the limitation date now.

   The cynic sees this as court service greed. £80 for starting the proceedings which presumably involves no / very little judicial time and a massive top up if a judge does need to spend any time on it (i.e. if the matter proceeds anywhere near a directions hearing).

   Okay for the court to seek a £10k fee where claim value cannot be ascertained early on, but does the claimant get a refund if crystalised value is much less? Does the claimant get any relaxation on proportionality for costs recovery because the claim settles less than the claim form value? No to both.

   Look at the recently reported clinical negligence case that was settled at £3500 with costs capped at circa £11k via proportionality. It was a cancer case that could have been worth £100k+ on initial review. If the limitation date had been imminent on initial solicitor instruction the ‘don’t know value’ issue fee for protectuve proceedings would have been £10k. Would the court have allowed much more, if any, than the £11k on assessment?

   The idea that the parties and the court can collaborate regarding the issue fee is flawed. Firstly, if the parties can agree to extend the limitation date the proceedings aren’t even required. Secondly, proceedings are often issued protectively because the defendant cannot be ID’d.

   No doubt that there was mischief in the case in question but, as I say, the decision is not case specific.

   Another bar to access to justice. Expecting an ex parte Witham-esque challenge to court fees on the next fee increase.

Comments are closed.