The Supreme Court Party

fluxo

Not specifically referencing Magna Carta here, but:

"86. The 2007 Act does not state the purposes for which the power conferred by section 42(1) to prescribe fees may be exercised. There is however no dispute that the purposes which underlay the making of the Fees Order are legitimate. Fees paid by litigants can, in principle, reasonably be considered to be a justifiable way of making resources available for the justice system and so securing access to justice. Measures that deter the bringing of frivolous and vexatious cases can also increase the efficiency of the justice system and overall access to justice.

87. The Lord Chancellor cannot, however, lawfully impose whatever fees he chooses in order to achieve those purposes. It follows from the authorities cited that the Fees Order will be ultra vires if there is a real risk that persons will effectively be prevented from having access to justice. That will be so because section 42 of the 2007 Act contains no words authorising the prevention of access to the relevant tribunals. That is indeed accepted by the Lord Chancellor.

88. But a situation in which some persons are effectively prevented from having access to justice is not the only situation in which the Fees Order might be regarded as ultra vires. As appears from such cases as Leech and Daly, even where primary legislation authorises the imposition of an intrusion on the right of access to justice, it is presumed to be subject to an implied limitation. As it was put by Lord Bingham in Daly, the degree of intrusion must not be greater than is justified by the objectives which the measure is intended to serve.

[...]"

Did you read the whole 44 page judgement?

It's here:

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2015-0233-judgment.pdf

IronGiant

Thanks. Yes that explains the Supreme Court decision on tribunal fees (albeit without reference to Magna Carta), but it doesn't explain why other fees are permitted, when they could be considered an equal or greater barrier to justice.

It also doesn't explain what a reasonable fee would be, in their Lordship's opinion.......

Jezza99

I'm impressed that you read 44 pages of a technical legal ruling in 15 or so minutes. Ignoring the first two pages, that's 22.5 seconds per page.

Go back and read it and come back when you've thought it over.

IronGiant

Go on, indulge me. As you have obviously read it, why not go ahead and share your learning?

fluxo

What would be the point?

You've got access to the document. Its authors are prominent legal experts. Get it from them rather than from some random forum member.

Ruperts slippers

It's always easier to rebuke others ignorance rather than improve one's own.

Ruperts slippers

I've read it.

It doesn't explain why these fees are not allowed, but small claims court fees are.

In fact a number of things to highlight.

Clause 7 and the Donovan report make mention that "inexpensive" fees are allowed. Of course "inexpensive" is a highly subjective term.

Clause 9 seems quite reasonable as justification for the fees.

Clause 11 seems key - and one area which the existing legislation did cater for as laid out in 21 and 22. Those figures may seem stingy as far as the monthly income test is concerned. The capital assets test seemed fair.

Clause 25 is clearly a concern, and should have been clarified in the legislation.

Clause 47 seems reasonable, and I don't see how the courts could dispute this.

Clause 55 is thought provoking. If the Lord Chancellor's own figures show someone may have to save for 3.5 months to afford the fees, but cases must be brought within 3 months then that is clearly wrong.

As far as the point I've been making goes, clause 74 is the crux. Fees are not prohibited.

Clause 91 I have some sympathy with, in accordance with what I said about clause 55.

My interpretation as a whole is that rather than the courts saying fees are illegal and not allowed, is they should have made an order that the levels of remission should be adjusted such that it is reasonable anyone could afford to pay the fees within 3 months.

Still can't see why employment tribunals cannot charge fees but small claims courts can.

Jezza99

I jut find it curious that some people want to hide behind a link to some obscure document, rather than answer a simple question. Anyone would think that they don't actually know what they are on about

Jezza99

...or that you just want an argument

We seem to have moved on from them being a bunch of un-elected expletive to their judgement having not gone far enough

Toko Black

I don't think it didn't go far enough. I think they came to the wrong decision.