R (London Borough of Hillingdon and others) v Lord Chancellor (Law Society and NSPCC intervening)

A challenge by four local authorities, supported by the Law Society and NSPCC, to the Lord Chancellor’s decision to increase court fees for public law family proceedings has been dismissed by a three-judge Administrative Court.

The fee payable by local authorities when applying to the court for an order taking a child into care was increased from £150 to £4,825, as part of the government’s policy of setting court fees at levels which reflect the full cost of running the court system. The claimants argued that the government’s reasoning for increasing the fees was irrational, that the increase would put vulnerable children at risk and that there had not been proper consultation.

The court accepted that it should apply “anxious scrutiny” to the decision. However, it went on to hold that “many people may find unconvincing the reasons advanced by the Government in justification of the increased fees, but the policy is not irrational”. The court also held that the duty to consult was limited by the terms of s. 92 of the Courts Act 2003.

Mark Vinall appeared on behalf of the Law Society (instructed by Shane Murphy at the Law Society).