Family Court Practice, The
Order the 2021 edition due out in May
Court of Protection Practice 2021
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Latest articles
One in four family lawyers contemplates leaving the profession, Resolution reveals
A quarter of family justice professionals are on the verge of quitting the profession as the toll of lockdown on their mental health becomes clear, the family law group Resolution revealed today,...
Family Law Awards adds a Wellbeing Award - enter now
This past year has been different for everyone, but family law professionals working on the front line of family justice have faced a more challenging, stressful and demanding time than most. To...
Pension sharing orders: Finch v Baker
The Court of Appeal judgment in Finch v Baker [2021] EWCA Civ 72 was released on 28 January 2021. The judgment provides some useful guidance on not being able to get what are essentially...
Eight things you need to know: Personal Injury damages in divorce cases
The “pre-acquired” or “non-matrimonial” argument is one which has taken up much commentary in family law circles over recent years.  However, the conundrum can be even...
Misogyny as a hate crime – what it means and why it’s needed
In recent weeks, the government announced that it will instruct all police forces across the UK to start recording crimes motivated by sex or gender on an experimental basis- effectively making...
View all articles

Harmonising fees

Sep 29, 2018, 17:16 PM
Slug : harmonising-fees
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : May 9, 2007, 08:14 AM
Article ID : 87771

David Burrows, Solicitor Advocate. The family proceedings costs regulations were amended as from 2 April 2007 by the Legal Aid in Family Proceedings (Amendment) Regulations 2007 (SI 2007/742) (see Legislation below). The author argues that this was a somewhat naive attempt to reduce pressure on the higher tiers of the courts by treating magistrates and county courts as one and the same for family proceedings and encourage greater use of the magistrates' court. The author's view is that this scheme of producing one combined rate for proceedings in the county and magistrates' courts simply ends up being discriminatory and ineffective, pushing the less well-off, disproportionately women, towards the often slower and possibly lesser standards of justice in the magistrates' courts. It is argued that improvements to procedure would be a far more effective way of economising and improving the costs situation. For the full article see May [2007] Fam Law.

Categories :
  • Articles
Tags :
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from