Source: https://civillitigationbrief.wordpress.com/2014/05/01/the-appropriate-fee-for-part-8-applications-clarification-at-last/
Timestamp: 2018-07-19 05:16:29
Document Index: 358485943

Matched Legal Cases: ['ART 8', 'ART 8', 'art 7', 'art 8', 'art 8', 'art 21']

THE APPROPRIATE FEE FOR PART 8 APPLICATIONS: CLARIFICATION AT LAST | Civil Litigation Brief
THE APPROPRIATE FEE FOR PART 8 APPLICATIONS: CLARIFICATION AT LAST
May 1, 2014 ·	by gexall ·	in Applications, Civil Procedure, Costs	· 1 Comment
In a post in February “Civil Procedure and the Secret State” complaints were made of a “secret” policy introduced by the courts of changes to a demand that Part 7 proceedings be issued instead of Part 8 proceedings and that higher court fees were being charged.
CLARIFICATION AT (LONG) LAST
This was brought to light by Robert Pettit. Robert has posted the reply from the Court Service today by way of a further comment today on the blog which is important and which I repeat here to ensure that it is given its proper due.
“Sent: 30 April 2014 11:26
To: ‘Rob Pettitt’
Subject: RE: CLARIFICATION ON FEES
Thank you for your email. We apologise for the delay in responding to your query below.
I can confirm that a Part 8 claim for approval does not attract fees for issuing a claim to recover monies (pursuant of paragraph 1.1 of schedule 1 of the Civil Proceedings Order 2008) but the fee applicable for an alternative remedy is (pursuant to Paragraph 1.5 of Schedule 1 to the Civil Proceedings Fees Order 2008).
There has been some inconsistencies in the courts around fees being charged in money claim fee and fee applicable for an alternative remedy (pursuant to paragraph 1.5 of Schedule 1 to the Civil Proceedings Fees Order 2008).
We are currently working to rectify this problem, once this is done customers would be notified.
Law and Access to Justice Group
4th Floor , Post Point 4.38 (Blue Core)
SW1H 9AJ”
Tags: Civil Procedure Rules, Service of Particulars of Claim
Dominic Cooper · May 1, 2014 - 4:44 pm · Reply→
Whilst this may be so, it is still concerning that the decision on how to interpret this statutory instrument is being made by the MoJ / HMCTS.
In any event, what one seeks on an infant settlement is the payment of money. The wording of CPR Part 21.10(2)(a) refers to a “CLAIM by or on behalf of or against a child or protected party”. This can be a claim for anything – an injunction, money, damages, declaratory relief.
It seems to me that this is what the claim is for and the proceedings are begun as part of that claim, albeit that the only procedural step sought is approval of the settlement.
The Civil Proceedings Fees Order refers to a fee payable “on starting proceedings to recover a sum of money”, and in the alternative to a fee payable “on starting proceedings for the recovery of land” and in the further altenative to “on starting proceedings for any other remedy”.
So, the HMCTS argument must go that seeking approval of a settlement is not a claim to recover a sum of money (although it is, since that is what is ultimately being sought). But surely it is not a claim for any other “remedy” either, since approval of a settlement to pay money is not a “remedy” – it is approving of the already agreed “remedy”.
I think I should get out more …
← THE CRITERIA TO BE APPLIED WHEN A PARTY MAKES AN APPLICATION AHEAD OF THE DATE OF THE BREACH: THE ROBERT CRITERIA CONSIDERED
THE COURT SERVICE AND THE “SECRET STATE”: ANOTHER EXAMPLE FROM “LEGAL CHAP” →