There is a legal point worth raising with regard to the increase in probate fees: is it lawful for the government to use probate fees as a calculated revenue-maker for the consolidated fund, rather than just to cover the costs of running the courts, tribunals and the probate service?
A related question is: are revenues from court fees and probate fees ‘hypothecated’ in law, so that they cannot be diverted to make up for shortfalls in government spending elsewhere?
Court fees are raised by a statutory instrument, whereas tax rates have to be – or customarily are – put through in primary legislation. This point feeds into wider debates: (i) can the judiciary be used as a ‘profit-centre’ by the central executive/Treasury, rather than as a standalone and break-even service? And (ii) what is the law on ‘stealth taxing’ – raising taxes in effect by charging higher access fees for services that people just can’t avoid needing from time to time?
Could there be a case for a consumer body or open government pressure group to run a case for judicial review within the short time limit allowed?
James Brenan, Cubism Law, London
