Feeling in a generous mood, I thought I would again respond to some of the search queries that have recently found their way to Family Lore. Once again, my Disclaimer (see the sidebar) applies to what follows.

how do i get a court order to stop my wife from taking the net proceeds from sale of house

Presumably, the house has already been sold and is/was owned solely by your wife, in which case you can apply to the court for an injunction order restraining her from taking the money. If it has not been sold yet then you can register a matrimonial home rights notice at the Land Registry, which will have to be removed before the sale can be completed - you will only agree to its removal once you are satisfied that the net proceeds will not be distributed until their division has either been agreed, or determined by the court. If the house is or was owned jointly, then the conveyancer dealing with the sale should not distribute the net proceeds without the agreement of both parties, or a court order.

what is a draft consent order

And, by the same searcher:

is a draft consent order legal document

A consent order is simply an order, the provisions of which have been agreed by the parties. The term most commonly refers to financial/property orders in divorce proceedings. A draft order is usually prepared by one of the parties' solicitors, agreed with the other party's solicitor, and then sent to the court for approval. If the court approves the draft, then it will make an order in those terms. The question then arises: is an agreed draft consent order enforceable? The answer is that it probably is, unless it states that the agreement contained in the order will only be binding upon the parties in the event of the court making an order in its terms.

who killed shafilea ahmed

We don't yet know, but the police are investigating a number of possible leads, following a recent appeal on the BBC Crimewatch programme.

lawyer deliberately makes it worse for their client

Oh dear. Sounds like this could be a matter for the Legal Complaints Service.

csa liability order can't pay

A liability order enables the Child Support Agency to take action to enforce payment of child support. What happens next depends upon what type of enforcement action the Agency decides to take. For example, they could instruct a bailiff to take possession of the non-resident parent’s belongings and sell them to raise the money the non-resident parent owes, they could take enforcement action in a county court, or they could apply to a magistrates court for the non-resident parent to be committed to prison. Note that on a committal application the court must consider the non-resident parent's means, and whether there has been 'wilful refusal or culpable neglect' on their part.

what to do if you have been named as the person involved in adultery

If you have been named as a 'Co-Respondent' in divorce proceedings, then you will have been served with a copy of the divorce petition, together with a form of acknowledgement, which you should complete and return to the court, stating (amongst other things) whether or not you admit the alleged adultery. If you do, then the court could order you to pay all or part of the Petitioner's costs of the divorce. You should seek legal advice if you are not sure how to complete the form.

i want to change the arrangements for our children

The first thing you should do is to try to agree any change in arrangements with the other parent. If this is not possible, would they agree to discuss the matter with you and a mediator? If all reasonable efforts to agree fail, then you may make an application to a court for an appropriate order (which will depend upon the nature of the arrangements which you would like changed).

taking advantage family court

Huh? Who's taking advantage of who, and how?

remarriage legal advice child support

Remarriage by itself does not affect liability for child support, but if the non-resident parent's new spouse has dependent children, then the liability is reduced when the NRP and his/her spouse live together.

english family law wife equal

Yes - of course.

county court procedures decree absolute

The procedure on applying for the decree absolute depends upon whether you are the petitioner or the respondent. The petitioner may apply after six weeks have elapsed since the date of the pronouncement of the decree nisi, by completing a simple application form and paying the court fee, currently £40. The court will then send out the decree absolute. The respondent may apply three months from the date when the petitioner can first apply, but the procedure is considerably different, and may involve a court hearing. Note that if either party applies after 12 months have elapsed since the date of the decree nisi, then they will need to explain the reasons for the delay, whether there has been any resumption of cohabitation since the decree nisi, and whether the wife has given birth to any child since the decree nisi.

what to dress in law court

Well, I wouldn't recommend a black cocktail dress, fishnet stockings and high heels, as an American judge was found wearing recently (albeit not in court), even if you're a woman. I assume that the query comes from a non-lawyer (hopefully lawyers know what to wear), in which case there is no dress code, but I would recommend wearing something smart, such as a suit.

set aside consent order for material non disclosure

I suspect that this query may have come from a lawyer, so I'll be brief (look it up yourself!). Any order, made by consent or not, can be set aside for a material non-disclosure, but before you make the application ask yourself: would the court have made a substantially different order if the disclosure had been made?

grandparent's rights in divorce

Grandparents (presumably of the children of the divorcing couple) have no rights in connection with the actual divorce proceedings. If the query relates to contact with the grandchildren, see this post. Otherwise, the only other scenario in which grandparents may be involved is in any property settlement on the divorce, where they claim to have an interest in the property.

application for an order for disclosure of child's whereabouts

See this post.

application for ancillary relief for dismissal purposes only

These are required with applications for ancillary relief (i.e. financial/property) consent orders (see above) - the financial claims have to be made, so that the court can dismiss them. They are made by completing a Form A, and heading it with the words 'For Dismissal Purposes Only'.

complaints about mediators divorce

The mediation service should have its own complaints procedure. If you are not satisfied with the outcome, then you may make a complaint to the UK College of Family Mediators.

Lastly, a question that I can't answer:

why marry?

Read More...

I've now had a chance to digest the responses to the Family Procedure Rules consultation paper, published on the 22nd February. These things move extremely slowly, so I'll begin by recapping. The original Consultation Paper was published way back in August 2006 and, as I mentioned in a post at the time, set out four 'key objectives' for the new Rules: "modernisation of language, harmonisation with the Civil Procedure Rules, a single unified code of practice and alignment in all levels of court", and sought views upon how these objectives can be realised.

The first thing I noticed was how few of the responses came from individuals involved in the family justice system. Whether this was due to apathy, leaving it to their professional bodies or simply satisfaction with the original proposals I cannot say, but as the report states, the majority of specific proposals were supported.

So, what were the responses? Here are some of the main points:

• Service by email in family proceedings was supported, but many favoured more stringent restrictions on its use than in civil proceedings, given the personal nature of family proceedings and the perceived lack of security compared to other modes of service.
• Generally, the proposed new terminology was supported and will go into the new Rules, although there were some who felt that 'Conditional Order' (replacing 'Decree Nisi') and 'Final Order' (replacing 'Decree Absolute') was confusing. 'Maintenance pending outcome of proceedings' (replacing 'maintenance pending suit') was felt to require further simplification. The term '2nd respondent' will replace both 'party cited' and 'co-respondent'.
• The majority agreed that Statements of Truth should replace affidavits.
• There was overwhelming support for the ancillary relief rules to apply to other proceedings, including Schedule 1 Children Act applications, and most felt that a simplified version should apply to financial proceedings in magistrates courts.
• The majority of respondents felt that it was appropriate to separate financial applications from the matrimonial/civil partnership proceedings.
• The proposal that certain procedures in the magistrates’ courts be aligned with the procedures in the county courts and High Court was very strongly supported.
• Lastly, the proposed changes to the procedure for appeals from decisions of magistrates’ courts in family proceedings were supported by an "overwhelming majority", so that there will be a single form of appeal notice, and all such appeals will go to the county court, rather than the High Court.

Overall, it seems that there will be little change to the original proposals. The Family Procedure Rule Committee will now consult on a set of draft rules, although I understand from the Family Law Week blog that this will not be until the end of the year, so the new Rules are still some way off.

Read More...

I don't know whether it is a requirement that divorcing Taiwanese couples must jointly file divorce documents with the 'Household Registration Office', but it certainly seems like a bad idea to me. The China Post reports today two cases in which the husband assaulted the wife in the course of the filing process. In the first case, the wife was fatally wounded. In the second case, the husband allegedly attempted to murder the wife but was overpowered by a police officer, and that brings me to the point of this post: court security.

All those involved in the family justice system are fully aware of the level of emotion that can be stirred up in family court cases, and that that emotion can often spill over into anger and aggression. Indeed, many cases are concerned with allegations of aggression and violence. I'm sure most family lawyers have experienced that feeling of trepidation as to how a party is going to react to a decision that is not going to go their way. Despite all of this, most family courts in this country have no security whatsoever. If a party were to become violent then the only people to stop them would be the lawyers and court staff. How long before someone gets seriously hurt? I realise that any suggestion that all courts have security staff will fall on the deaf ears of those holding the purse strings, but nevertheless I feel that it should be given consideration.

Read More...

"I do understand right now in my state of mind that shooting at the judiciary is not a proper form of political redress"

- Darren Mack, who murdered his wife and then shot the judge who was handling his divorce, in Reno, Nevada.

Read More...

Hat-tip to the Magistrate's Blog for pointing out this story in The Times today. 'Christian JP' Andrew McClintock resigned from the family panel in Sheffield after he was refused exemption from adoption hearings involving same-sex couples. He lost a claim for discrimination at an employment tribunal in March and is now appealing to the EAT. I agree entirely both with Adrian Lynch of the Department for Constitutional Affairs, who said that it was for Parliament to decide who could adopt children and that judges and magistrates could not decide which parts of the law they wished to apply, and with Keith Porteous Wood, of the National Secular Society, who said that: "We must not allow the law to be ‘religionised’".

[Update: Pink Tape has now posted on this story, and argues far more eloquently than I could why a Magistrate should not be allowed to decide what cases he deals with, including debunking the nonsense argument that McClintock's view was not a deep-seated religious belief, but the “valid and responsible” opinion of a “reasonable scientific officer”.]

[Further update: Thanks to The Barrister Blog for pointing out that Mr McClintock's appeal failed. He is, however, now taking the matter to the Court of Appeal.]

Read More...

This morning I received the following email:

"Dear Mr. John Bolch,

Hello, my name is Ng. I am currently pursuing a South Australian Matriculation Pre-university Programme in Taylor’s University College, Malaysia. I am doing a research regarding to the issue, “Should judges be allowed to make law?”

In the process of collecting materials to support my point where judges should be allowed to make law, I have come across your article “Judge-Made Law” posted on 3rd May 2007 in your blog, familylawsolicitor.blogspot.com.

Hence, I would kindly appreciate if you could state your opinion on the issue – “Should judges be allowed to make law?” clearly in your reply and provide valid reasons.

Thanks for your precious time."

Wow, one heck of an email to receive on a Sunday morning! The title of the post to which Ng refers was my little homage to law students, most of whom, it seems, are required to answer some version of this tricky question by sadistic law tutors. I may have over twenty years experience in the law, but I'm not sure that I'm qualified to provide an answer. Nevertheless, here goes.

The first thing I would say is that it seems to me that the question is academic (in both senses), particularly in any common-law based system: who but judges can 'fill the gaps' left by statute-based law?

I can understand the argument that all law should be made by the (democratically elected) government, but that can surely only ever be a pipe dream. It is utterly impossible for any government to create a complete system of law, covering every conceivable situation in every conceivable area. Inevitably, there will be gaps, either (more rarely now) where there is no statute law at all, or where the application of statute law to a given situation has to be interpreted. If judges don't fill these gaps what do we do, stop the court proceedings and refer the matter back to parliament?

The best-known example of the 'interpretation' gap in English family law is section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act, where the guidance given to courts deciding how to divide assets on divorce amounts to little more than a checklist of factors to be taken into account (this is what Jeremy Posnansky QC was referring to in the post mentioned above) - only in recent years have the courts 'imposed' a starting-point of equality. Here I have to agree that such a fundamental point should surely be determined by parliament, but parliament has thus far chosen not do so.

More learned lawyers than me will no doubt cringe at the answer I have given above. Nevertheless, I hope this helps you Ng, and good luck with your studies - just ask someone else next time!

Read More...

The debate over transparency in family courts continues. On the 22nd March the Department for Constitutional Affairs published a summary of the responses to its consultation paper 'Confidence and confidentiality: Improving transparency and privacy in family courts'. It seems that the responses were not all that those seeking reform, such as fathers' groups, were hoping for.

On the day before the publication the Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer, pre-empted the summary (despite saying he didn't want to do so), when he delivered the Lord Williams of Mostyn Memorial Lecture. He summed up the responses of children as follows:

Over the course of the consultation well over 200 children gave their views, some of whom had been involved in care proceedings. Overwhelmingly they rejected the idea – with the clear support of key third-party organisations speaking up for the interests of children. They are clear – crystal clear – that they do not want the family court filled with people who have no involvement in proceedings.

They do not want people in the court hearing private details of their lives. They are worried about themselves or their families being identified by people whom they do not trust to report responsibly.

As a result, it seems that the government is going to water-down proposals for reform:

We need to ensure that people know more about what goes on in the court room; for example, the reasons conclusions are reached by the court. We also need to be clear that families and children know what they rightly regard as private information, rightly remains private. That may well involve allowing the press or the public in only where the judge expressly agrees as an exception.

I can't say I'm sorry. As I've mentioned before, I've always had concerns about opening up the family courts, particularly because of the effect upon the most important people involved - the children themselves.

Read More...

Two BBC news stories caught my eye today:

Firstly, Judge Paul Collins tells Radio 4's Law in Action programme that the county courts system is 'in chaos', due to low pay and staff shortages. The report doesn't mention that the county courts deal not only with civil cases but also with most family matters, including divorce. I have certainly experienced mistakes being made, and huge delays in dealing with paperwork. As the judge points out, the problem is being exacerbated by fewer people getting legal aid, and therefore representing themselves. It is interesting that the report states that last year the income the courts received from fees exceeded their costs, and the surplus was spent on other services. This makes the fees a type of taxation - what is the rationale for court users paying a tax? Surely (and obviously) the full income from fees should be put into the courts system.

The other story is a video interview with Louise Campbell, the mother of Molly Campbell/Misbah Rana, who recently gave up her application for custody of her daughter. The most interesting thing about this to me is that she expresses her regret at bringing her children up as Muslims, wishing she had let them decide the matter when they grow up. I agree entirely - it is surely wrong to teach a child that one faith is better than another, and it is obviously a nonsense to describe a child as a 'Muslim child' or a 'Christian child', just as it would be a nonsense to describe the child of a communist as a 'Marxist child'.

Read More...

So now it has been decided that lawyers can wear the veil in court. Why must we accord respect to what would otherwise be considered an absurd fashion, just because it has religious connotations? Does this mean that I can go into court with a plate of spaghetti on my head because I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, who tells me I must do so?

For an eloquent explanation of why religious commitment is not intrinsically deserving of respect see this excellent article by A C Grayling in the Guardian Unlimited.

Read More...

The subject of opening up the family courts to public scrutiny is back in the news with the reporting of the decision in Norfolk County Council v Webster and Others [2006] EWHC 2733 (Fam). The case actually did not concern access to the hearing by the general public, but rather access by the media. Nevertheless, it has been described as a 'landmark ruling' in that it is the first time adoption proceedings have been opened up to the media, and the suggestion seems to be that this is another step towards a more transparent family courts system. I'm not too sure about that - this case does seem to be somewhat unusual - only time will tell.

The report of the case is interesting for Mr Justice Munby's exposition of the principle that legal proceedings should be conducted in public and should be fully and freely reported. As he points out, it has long been established (contrary to popular opinion) that this principle applies to family proceedings just as much as to other sorts of proceedings. However, as he also points out, there have also long been exceptions to the principle (including in non-family areas), one of which is proceedings relating to children - he cites Lord Shaw of Dunfermline in the 1913 case of Scott v Scott who gave the reason for this exception as that children should not suffer "the consequence of placing in the light of publicity their truly domestic affairs". He then goes through the modern statutory provisions and deals with the balancing exercise between publicity and privacy, concluding that, in this case, publicity should prevail. Of particular interest is the following passage of his judgment:

The other element of great importance, as it seems to me, in the present case, is what I have referred to as the public interest in maintaining the confidence of the public at large in the courts and, specifically, in the family justice system. This is not merely a point of general application. It has, at it seems to me, a particular resonance in this particular case. Rightly or wrongly, correctly or otherwise - and for present purposes it matters not which - the media have suggested that the parents and their children A, B and C have been, and that the parents and [the other child] are at risk of being, the victims of a miscarriage of justice. In these circumstances there is a pressing need for public confidence to be restored - either by the public and convincing demonstration that there has not been a miscarriage of justice or, as the case may be, by public acknowledgement that there has been. That is not, of course, the purpose of the current proceedings, and it is very possible that the outcome of the judicial process, whatever it may be, will not be a clarity and certainty that all will accept. But as few obstacles as possible should be placed in the way of the media doing their job.

He goes on to state: "there is another important aspect of the problem that has to be taken into account: the unfortunate fact that the rule of confidentiality facilitates the dissemination of false and tendentious accounts of proceedings in family courts, which in turn tends to further undermine public confidence in the system". How very true. Whether this case helps to restore public confidence remains to be seen.

Read More...

A client of mine recently issued an application for a contact order in the local County Court, only to have that court transfer the matter to the Family Proceedings Court. The transfer was made "upon it appearing in the Court's view that this application may be appropriately transferred to a Family Proceedings Court". This doesn't explain why the transfer was made, but I suspect that the reason was to reduce the County Court list, on the basis that the matter would be dealt with more quickly by the Family Proceedings Court. The only problem with that is that the County Court took nearly two weeks to order the transfer, then gave the parties a further 7 days to object, then my client will have to wait for the transfer to take place, and for the Family Proceedings Court to fix an initial hearing date. The Family Proceedings Court will have to deal with the matter extremely quickly if these delays are to be made up.

So it seems that choice of forum between County Court and Family Proceedings Court may in many cases be academic. Of course, why we have a choice at all is another point - if we ever get a single unified Family Court then there will be no choice.

Read More...

Nearly Legal recently posted about the joys of preparing trial bundles, a joy that I have also been experiencing this week. In my case the bundle is required for a one-hour Financial Dispute Resolution appointment. I don't recall ever having to prepare a bundle for an FDR before, but it seems that courts are making directions for bundles to be prepared more and more frequently. As anyone who has done it will know, preparing a bundle involves a lot of time for the fee earner and support staff and an enormous amount of photocopying, hence substantial expense for the client. Is it really necessary for bundles to be prepared so often? After all, most of the bundle comprises the court pleadings, which are in everyone's possession anyway.

I note that the new Practice Direction on court bundles in family proceedings will not apply to County Court cases listed for one hour or less. Hopefully, District Judges will follow this, and only order bundles for longer hearings.

Read More...

Back to the serious stuff. The Guardian included a story yesterday about one of the proposed changes to the new Family Procedure Rules. This proposal would discourage or even ban the naming of co-respondents in adultery divorce petitions. I did not mention this in my previous post about the Rules because my experience is that co-respondents are very rarely named anyway (since petitioners have no longer been obliged to name them, where their identity was known) - I certainly usually try to dissuade my clients from naming them (as recommended by the Protocol), even where the client is eager to do so. However, I note with interest (and some alarm) the quote in the Guardian article from Andrew Greensmith, chairman of Resolution, that "there are some courts where judges are reluctant to accept evidence of adultery without a third party being named". This has immediately changed my view on the proposal from indifference to full support. Naming co-respondents almost always makes the divorce more complicated and increases animosity. If some courts insist upon it, then the Rules need to be changed to stop this, although I'm not sure whether there should be a complete ban, as some commentators have apparently suggested.

Read More...

On the 30th August the Department for Constitutional Affairs published "A new procedural code for family proceedings", a consultation paper on the policy behind the proposed new Family Procedure Rules. The new Rules intend to achieve four 'key objectives': "modernisation of language, harmonisation with the Civil Procedure Rules, a single unified code of practice and alignment in all levels of court", and the paper seeks views upon how these objectives can be realised.

The paper includes some pretty fundamental changes to family procedure. For example, the proposed changes in terminology, which will (inter alia) see 'Decree Nisi' becoming 'Conditional Order' and 'Decree Absolute' becoming 'Final Order'. Respondents to divorces will no longer be able to file a freestanding petition, but instead will be given 21 days to make a cross application in the same proceedings. Applications for a financial/property settlement will no longer be included in the divorce petition (or 'application', as it will be called), so that petitioners (or 'applicants') will have to make a separate application for a financial order to ensure that they do not lose their right to apply after remarriage.

If you wish to give your views the paper includes a 43-question questionnaire and a section for you to give details about yourself. Responses must be sent by the 1st December.

Read More...

Following a press briefing by Constitutional Affairs minister Harriet Harman and an earlier interview with her on Radio 4's Today programme, BBC News includes a report today upon the government's expected proposals to make family courts more open and accountable. These will include admitting individuals to the court at the discretion of the judge and, new to me, allowing MPs, local councillors and court inspectors to attend hearings "to see the system was working". Hmm, not sure about that - family court proceedings are distressful enough for most clients without the added trauma of having such people listen to their every word.

Read More...

In an interesting and topical judgment the Court of Appeal held on the 27th June that a father would be allowed to identify his seven year old daughter, the proceedings relating to her having been concluded. The father had been appealing against an injunction preventing him identifying her, as he wished to be able to debate issues about the family justice system in public by reference to his own case, including the fact that he and his former wife had reached an agreement for sharing the child’s care - see my previous post here. He was not, however, permitted to use the child in a film he proposed to make to justify his abduction of the child to Portugal in 2003.

A news release relating to this case, Clayton v Clayton [2006] EWCA Civ 878, can be found here on the Judiciary of England and Wales website, which includes the interesting statement that the Court of Appeal "regards its decision as a small step towards greater transparency and rebutting the slur inherent in the charge that the family courts administer “secret” justice".

Read More...

On the 11th June the House of Commons Constitutional Affairs Committee published a report "Family Justice: the operation of the family courts revisited". The report deals with three issues: delays and lack of resources in the family courts, transparency in family court proceedings and mediation and the Family Resolutions Pilot Project.

I have previously complained about delays, and the problem seems to be getting worse. In my local County Court (I won't name it, but you can work it out from my location), it is now taking months to get consent orders made, and it recently took a year to get a defective order amended. It is becoming increasingly difficult to explain these delays to clients, and no amount of chasing the court seems to make any difference. As I've said before, I'm not blaming the courts or their staff, the problem is obviously lack of funding/resources, and I can't see that improving any time in the near future.

On the subject of transparency the report states "an obvious move to improve transparency in the family court would be to allow the press and public into the family court under appropriate reporting restrictions, subject to the judge’s discretion to exclude the public". OK, but I can't see the press being interested in family proceedings unless they involve celebrities and the only members of the public that will be interested will be family members of the parties, which will cause obvious difficulties.

For those who don't know,the Family Resolutions Pilot Project ran between September 2004 and August 2005 in Brighton, Inner London and Sunderland and was designed as a pilot scheme to assist parties involved in court proceedings about contact after separation or divorce by helping parents to reach an agreement about contact arrangements. As the report states, the project was a clear failure. Apparently, the originators had hoped to get 1000 couples to participate in the scheme, but only 62 couples did so. Notwithstanding this, President of the Family Division Sir Mark Potter is clearly a fan of mediation and believes the solution is to make it compulsory. He dismisses the idea that you can't force people to mediate: "I just do not subscribe to that. If somebody is ordered to attend a first mediation hearing it is a very peculiar human being indeed who sits there with his or her arms folded and says, “I’m not going to play” when an experienced mediator gets to work". Perhaps Sir Mark, with his background in commercial law, does not realise just how intractable parties to family proceedings can be.

The full report can be found here.

Read More...

Whenever I meet other solicitors at court the topic of conversation inevitably turns to delays in the Courts system. It seems everyone has a story (or several) to tell involving an absurd length of time that they have waited for the court to deal with some particular matter. Typical examples involve consent orders that have been with the court for months, or legal aid bills filed last year that still haven't been assessed. These delays can cause real hardship, not just for clients but also for cash-strapped legal aid firms waiting to be paid.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not blaming the staff or judges - they are doing a hard job under difficult circumstances (although it is amusing how litigants and their solicitors are instantly penalised by the court for missing any time limit). The blame, as usual, lies with the government for not providing the resources needed to properly staff the courts, and things are only going to get worse, as mentioned in my post here. It seems that the government's answer is to impose draconian increases in court fees (as I have also mentioned previously), in an attempt to discourage people from using the courts.

So, it seems that we are either going to end up with a second-rate system, or we are going to have a system that is only available to those that can afford to use it - or perhaps we will end up with both. Or am I just being cynical?

Read More...

I read on the front cover of this weeks Gazette that the Department for Constitutional Affairs ("DCA") is to lay off at least 1,300 staff by the end of March next year, around a thousand of which will go from the Courts Service. Well, that's certainly going to do a lot to improve the chronic delays in the courts system. I was particularly interested in a quote from Alex Allan, permanent secretary to the DCA, who said "in some parts of the business we may need to invite volunteers for early departure schemes". I wasn't aware that the Courts Service was a business - call me old-fashioned, but I thought it was a public service. They'll be selling shares next (although I don't think I'll be buying) ...

Read More...

On the 16th March the House of Lords debated the recent increase in family court fees. Liberal Democrat Shadow Lord Chancellor Lord Goodhart tabled a resolution "that this House regrets the Government's decision to restrict access to justice through the Family Proceedings Fees (Amendment No. 2) Order 2005 (S.I. 2005/3443) and the Magistrates' Courts Fees Order 2005 (S.I. 2005/3444)", calling these orders "a significant part of a major threat to access to justice". He said that "these increases are driven by the insistence that the costs of courts should be borne entirely by litigants...a relatively new concept" which had been exacerbated by the fact that since 1992 judicial salaries and pensions had been paid from court fees. He accepted that the increase in court fees did not affect the very poorest, who could get legal aid, but said that it is "almost impossible for anyone who is in regular work to qualify for legal aid or for exemption or remission from court fees", resulting in the fees now forming "a real deterrent for those who are on below-average incomes or, indeed, on average incomes or somewhat above them".

I couldn't agree more. The full House of Lords debate can be read here.

Read More...