A Comparative Study of the "Amount of Litigation Costs" in Iranian, English, and Islamic Legal Systems

 ∴ Introduction ∴ ‌
Access to justice stands as a cornerstone of judicial systems globally, with litigation costs serving as a pivotal factor influencing individuals' ability to seek legal remedies. In Iran and England, the structure and amount of these costs differ significantly, impacting citizens' access to justice in various ways. While prior research has explored the principles behind litigation costs and their collection by judicial institutions, there is a notable gap concerning the specific amounts charged and how they compare across different legal systems. This study aims to fill that gap by providing a comprehensive analysis of the litigation costs in the Iranian and English legal systems, grounded in the foundations of Islamic jurisprudence.
     The significance of this research lies in its dual focus: first, on the actual amounts of litigation costs rather than just their underlying principles; and second, on a comparative analysis between Iran and England—a comparison seldom made in existing literature. By examining these aspects, the study seeks to identify barriers to justice posed by current cost structures and offer recommendations for reforms that could enhance access to justice in Iran.

‌ ∴ Research Question ∴ ‌
What are the differences and similarities in the amount and structure of litigation costs between the Iranian and English legal systems, and how do Islamic jurisprudential foundations influence the imposition of these costs in Iran?

‌ ∴ Research Hypothesis ∴ ‌
The hypothesis of this study posits that the Iranian legal system's litigation costs, influenced by Islamic jurisprudential principles, are structured differently compared to those in the English legal system. Specifically, the categorization into fixed and variable costs in Iran, with variable costs being dependent on the claim's value, may present economic barriers to justice. By contrast, the English system may offer alternative models that, if adapted appropriately, could inform reforms in Iran to reduce such barriers and improve access to justice.

‌ ∴ Methodology & Framework, if Applicable ∴ ‌
This research employs a doctrinal and comparative legal methodology. The doctrinal approach involves a detailed examination of legal texts, statutes, case law, and scholarly commentary within both the Iranian and English legal systems. The comparative aspect facilitates a side-by-side analysis to highlight differences and similarities in litigation costs.

‌ ∴ Results & Discussion ∴ ‌
The comparative analysis of litigation costs in the Iranian and English legal systems reveals significant differences in both structure and underlying principles. In Iran, litigants are subjected to three distinct types of costs:
     Fixed Costs: These are standard fees applied uniformly, independent of the claim's value.
     Variable Costs within a Defined Range: Costs that fluctuate within set parameters based on specific criteria.
     Value-Dependent Costs: In financial civil claims, costs are calculated as a percentage of the claim's value without established minimum or maximum limits.
     In contrast, the English legal system adopts a more streamlined approach:
     Criminal Complaints: No costs are imposed on complainants, aligning with the principle that criminal justice is a public service.
     Civil Claims: Fixed fees are applied, with a maximum litigation cost capped at £10,000. Percentage-based costs are limited to property and estate transactions, and even then, no cap is established.
     The Iranian system's reliance on percentage-based litigation costs is rooted in several principles:
     Correlation Between Damage and Benefit: Suggests that those who stand to gain more should contribute more to the cost of litigation.
     Wealth Redistribution Goals: Aligns with the Islamic economic objective of equitable wealth distribution.
     Compensation for Higher Damages: Higher claims necessitate more resources, justifying increased costs.
     Prevention of Frivolous Lawsuits: Elevated costs deter baseless or malicious claims.
     Government Financing: Litigation costs serve as a revenue source for governmental functions.
     While these principles provide a jurisprudential and legal basis for the current cost structure, they also introduce challenges related to access to justice. The absence of caps on percentage-based costs can impose excessive financial burdens on claimants, particularly in high-value cases. This situation may discourage legitimate claims, undermining the fundamental right to legal recourse.
     The timing of cost collection further exacerbates the issue. Requiring payment at the initiation of legal proceedings places an immediate financial strain on claimants, who may not have the resources readily available, especially when the claim's value is yet unrealized. This practice can lead to claims of insolvency and deter individuals from pursuing valid legal actions.
     In examining the English system, certain practices emerge that could inform reforms in Iran:
     Fixed Fees with Caps: Implementing maximum limits on litigation costs can prevent excessive financial burdens.
     No Costs for Criminal Cases: Recognizing criminal justice as a public good ensures that victims are not dissuaded from reporting crimes due to cost concerns.
     Pre-Trial Reviews: Early examination of evidence helps filter out frivolous claims, reducing unnecessary litigation and associated costs.
     Proposed Reforms in Iran:
     Adjusting the Timing of Cost Collection: Deferring litigation cost payments until after the realization of claims or adjusting them based on the progression of the case can alleviate the initial financial burden on claimants.
     Aligning Costs with Economic Conditions and Judicial Expenses: Establishing litigation costs that reflect the judiciary's actual expenses and the claimant's financial capacity promotes fairness and accessibility. This approach involves:
     Financial Assessment Systems: Developing a unified, real-time system to assess individuals' economic status can ensure that litigation costs are proportionate. Recent advancements in data integration and financial transparency in Iran suggest feasibility for such a system.
     Preliminary Hearings: Introducing sessions to review evidence and documentation at the outset can deter frivolous lawsuits. This practice mirrors the pre-trial reviews in England and the United States, where early scrutiny helps streamline the judicial process.
     Penalizing Frivolous Claims: Strengthening the enforcement of penalties for baseless lawsuits, as stipulated in Iranian civil procedure law, can discourage misuse of the legal system.

‌ ∴ Conclusion ∴ ‌
The investigation highlights that the Iranian legal system's current approach to litigation costs presents significant barriers to justice due to the financial burdens imposed on claimants. The comparative study with the English legal system uncovers alternative models that balance the need for judicial funding with the imperative of access to justice.
     Key findings include:
     Disproportionate Financial Burdens: Percentage-based costs without caps in Iran can deter legitimate claims, conflicting with the principle of accessible justice.
     Timing of Cost Collection: Immediate payment requirements exacerbate financial pressures on claimants, potentially infringing on their legal rights.
     Potential for Reform: Adjusting cost structures and collection methods can align the system more closely with both Islamic principles and contemporary needs.
     The study concludes that reforms are necessary to ensure that litigation costs do not impede access to justice. By considering the claimant's economic conditions and the actual expenses incurred by the judiciary, Iran can develop a more just and efficient legal system. Implementing practices such as financial assessment systems and preliminary hearings can further streamline the process and reduce frivolous litigation.
     Adopting these recommendations would not only uphold the jurisprudential foundations of the Iranian legal system but also enhance its alignment with international standards of justice. The proposed reforms aim to strike a balance between generating necessary government revenue and preserving the fundamental right of individuals to seek legal redress without undue economic hardship.