Law Society opposes judicial review fees scale
The Law Society is strongly opposing proposals to introduce a scale of fees in the justice system and for environmental judicial reviews.
The solicitor representative body has made a submission to the Department of Climate, Energy and the Environment, warning that such a measure threatens the well-established rights of individuals to secure access to justice.
The move could undermine constitutional and international legal protections, it said this morning.
The Law Society has raised fundamental objections to the plan, stating that proposed fee caps would interfere with the right of access to the courts under the Constitution, the European Convention on Human Rights, the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the Aarhus Convention.
Money over merit
Law Society President Rosemarie Loftus (pictured) said that the proposals, if implemented, represented a significant setback for fairness and legal accountability: “These proposals will prioritise money over merit. If implemented, they will not deter cases with questionable merit so long as the individual, or group, taking the case has significant financial resources.
"However, these proposals will impact on cases of genuine merit if the individual, or group, taking the case does not have significant financial resources.
“Access to justice must be a universal right and not one that is determined by the financial means of those bringing it. The proposed scale of fees risks closing the doors of the courts to individuals and community groups seeking to challenge potentially unlawful planning or environmental decisions.
“This measure would be a regressive step and would weaken the rule of law and erode essential democratic safeguards,” she said.
The Law Society says that judicial reviews play a vital role in upholding environmental standards, ensuring that public authorities comply with national and EU law when making planning or environmental decisions.
The Law Society notes that there is no evidence that judicial-review actions delay housing or infrastructure delivery.
In 2025, it says, judicial-review cases declined by 19%, directly contradicting claims of ‘rapid growth’ in litigation.
No evidential data
The organisation also says that there is no data demonstrating that fee caps are an effective or proportionate solution.
It warns that these proposals would make representation in complex environmental cases financially unsustainable, limit access to expert witnesses, and discourage members of the public from engaging legal representation.
It says that the proposed fee caps would threaten the fairness and equitability of the procedure by placing the State in an advantageous position over citizens and community groups.
The Law Society further cautions that mandatory maximum fee scales could have anti-competitive effects and breach EU law.
The body said that it was also concerning to note that the scale of fees model proposed for adoption in Ireland mirrored aspects of the scale of fees that is in place in England and Wales – a system that is currently under scrutiny for non-compliance with the Aarhus Convention.
“We urge the Government to instead look at more effective alternative measures, such as developing internal appeals mechanisms or introducing non-binding cost guidelines to promote efficiency and early settlement, without limiting access to justice or weakening the independence of the legal profession,” the Law Society statement concluded.