Low-paid to get court 'entrance' fee refunds
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Thousands of people on low incomes got the go-ahead for refunds of court "entrance" fees yesterday after the Government swiftly bowed to last Friday's High Court ruling that new regulations were unlawful.
Lord Mackay, the Lord Chancellor, said that he would not attempt to appeal the decision and would immediately make new orders restoring the exemption from fees for people on income support, and restoring the right of others of limited means to apply for reductions or remissions.
The orders will replace those parts of rules introduced on 15 January but declared invalid by the court. Anyone who would have been eligible for exemption or remission but for the changes will be eligible for a refund.
Mr Justice Laws said in last week's test case that the effect of the new rules was to "bar absolutely" many people from seeking justice from the courts in a wide-ranging variety of situations.
"The right to a fair trial, which of necessity imports the right of access to the court, is as near to an absolute right as any I can envisage," he said.
The case, brought by an Essex businessman, John Witham, related only to the High Court, but Lord Mackay went further yesterday, bringing county and family-court proceedings within the scope of the order.
But a spokeswoman said he "remains concerned about the potential injustice where litigants in person, who are exempted or remitted from court fees, bring unjustified actions against defendants who must then pay to defend themselves with no prospect of recovering their costs.
"This judgment implies that this must be a matter for Parliament to regulate and the Lord Chancellor will consider it further in that light."
Nothing in the judgment or the new orders will affect the steep rises in court fees introduced by the rules, which raised the High Court fee from pounds 100 to between pounds 120 and pounds 500 and those in other civil cases from between 50 and 150 per cent.
Subscribe to Independent Premium to bookmark this article
Want to bookmark your favourite articles and stories to read or reference later? Start your Independent Premium subscription today.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments