When the Scottish Government published The Court Reform (Scotland) Bill, civil litigators and, in particular, personal injury lawyers might have thought the four years of uncertainty following Lord Gill's 2009 review of the civil courts in Scotland was at last at an end.
This is far from the case, with the reforms proposed in the Bill likely to exacerbate the long delays they were designed to eliminate. Furthermore, even though both Lord Gill and Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill have provided evidence to the Scottish Government on the Bill, frustratingly we are no further forward in getting any detail on exactly how a specialist injury court will function and where the expertise will come from.
It is also disappointing to see that, despite a lengthy consultation process, little regard has been paid to the genuine concerns raised by the legal profession on the effect and implementation of the changes.
The two most controversial proposals in the Bill are the intention to raise the limit of private jurisdiction in the Court of Session from £5000 to £150,000 and to establish a Specialist Personal Injury Court for Scotland.
The proposed increase on the limit of private jurisdiction to £150,000 represents a 3000% increase and will all but empty the Court of Session of personal injury business when it comes into force.
A significant rise in the limit was widely expected, with responses to the consultation process seeking a figure in the region of £50,000. It would appear the concerns raised by the profession about the £150,000 limit have been largely ignored by both the Scottish Government and Mr MacAskill.
At present, personal injury cases make up just less than 80% of business in the Court of Session and, within that number, the vast majority fall under the new £150,000 limit. This will significantly decrease the volume of cases raised in the Court of Session and will mean the current expertise in dealing with such cases will no longer be available in the vast majority of cases. People have traditionally gone to the Court of Session because they have more chance of accessing justice in what can be quite complex and protracted cases than in the Sheriff Court.
We are still in the dark as to where the Government's proposed "specialist" court would be located and, more importantly, where it intends to find the two "specialist" sheriffs who will preside over these cases. Who would want the job of sheriff knowing that they are earning significantly less than the Court of Session judges who have just waved off the majority of their current workload?
The sheriffs will be expected to absorb the majority of the annual personal injury caseload of the Court of Session, about 2500 cases a year at present handled by a well-stocked and well experienced Court of Session bench. This will lead to the very delays the Bill seeks to eliminate.
The Scottish Government maintains that its reforms will result in only about 3% of cases being switched between the two but we believe this is vastly underestimated. Even if proved correct, we are not convinced there will be adequate resources in place to handle those numbers.
These are all questions that must be answered if this Bill is to be given any mileage at all. Worryingly, these are questions that have been asked since 2009 and we still seem no closer to the answers.
It would appear that the four years between the Gill Review and the Bill have been something of a waste of time. More questions than answers remain as to how it will achieve its lofty objective of seeking to "modernise and enhance the efficiency of the Scottish justice system".
This should be of significant concern to practitioners on all sides in the personal injury sector and, more importantly, to accident victims. Overall, this Bill is a missed an opportunity to give us a system that works as it should, delivering justice for all on an equitable basis.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article