June 2017 Credit Management magazine

BENCH PRESS
MONEY, MONEY,
MONEY
We stand at a pivotal moment in the evolution of civil justice as far
as money claims are concerned. The next few months and years will
determine how effective, economic and desirable money claims remain,
says Amir Ali.
ECONOMICS are a major factor
– it is clear that successive
governments have viewed civil
justice as a cash cow. Not only
is it expected to be self-financing, but
also to finance other areas that would
otherwise be a burden on the taxpayer,
such as the criminal courts.
Despite paying substantial sums
that might more usually be expected
to provide an outstanding service,
Claimants have seen comparatively
limited investment in their area of the
court service. The increase in money
claim issue fees to five percent of value
for claims over £10,000 has seen a
reduction in larger claims. The idea of
risking further money to try to recover
an existing debt has always been
unpalatable. The size of the increases
now makes it an impediment to justice.
How perverse is the system, where a
claim is often now more likely to be
brought in a lower value case than a
larger one? Those who owe greater
sums of money are increasingly
immune from the risk of a Judgment,
while those who owe lower sums are
more likely to have one entered against
them. Our Civil Justice system has
always been based on fairness and this
proudly continues, yet in some ways
this now risks being undermined by its
own charging structure.
We have seen a continuation of
this approach in recent weeks, with
hearing fees no longer being refunded
where a court hearing is no longer
required. It was always understood
that the refunding of such fees was
designed to promote early settlement
between the parties. It is presumably
again the case that money is now seen
as more important than good case
management. It is extraordinary that it is
even necessary for a fee to be payable
for the Consent Order concluding the
claim and removing the hearing from
the list. Where else in society are you
expected to pay for a service and
denied a refund when you realise it is no
longer required? And are then actually
required to pay even more as a result?
If the court itself were reviewing such
a term under a contractual agreement,
would it be considered reasonable?
There are many reasons to be
optimistic for the future of Civil
Litigation. The Civil Structure Review
by Lord Justice Briggs was full of good
ideas. Lord Justice Jackson’s continuing
review of fixed costs will hopefully bring
greater certainty and transparency
around costs. There are many people
working hard within the Ministry of
Justice and the court system, striving
to provide the best service possible for
court users. We can only hope that all
of these efforts are not undermined by
the court fees themselves. The courts
should exist to provide a much-needed
service to society, not as a form of
taxation upon it.
Amir Ali is Chair of the Civil Court Users
Association (CCUA) – amir.ali@hcegroup.co.uk.
How perverse is the
system, where a
claim is often now
more likely to be
brought in a lower
value case than a
larger one?
The Recognised Standard
www.cicm.com June 2017 13