IN your report on the introduction of the Scottish Government's Courts Reform Bill you state:
"The bill is designed to reduce costs and delays for litigants, who currently have to take civil cases over £5000 to the costly Court of Session for resolution" ("Small firms welcome debt recovery plans", The Herald, February 8).
At present, litigants are free to choose to bring their cases either in their local sheriff court or in Scotland's national civil court, the Court of Session. There is no upper financial limit on the jurisdiction of the sheriff. Claims for less than £5000 have to be taken in the sheriff court. In relation to most types of case, no litigant has to take the case to the Court of Session for resolution. Litigants have a choice.
The effect of the increase to £150,000 is to take away that choice. Many litigants choose to take their cases to the Court of Session. The proposal will force litigants, who currently choose to bring their cases in the Court of Session, to litigate in the sheriff court unless the case is worth more than £150,000.
This would mean, for example, that small businesses with claims worth as much as £150,000 would be excluded from Scotland's national commercial court - a court which is specifically dedicated to providing a service which suits business needs.
Why should a small business which would prefer to use the commercial court be forced, instead, to litigate in the sheriff court? Is it really in the interests of businesses, consumers and others to be deprived of a choice they currently enjoy?
James Wolffe, QC,
Dean of the Faculty of Advocates, Parliament House,
Edinburgh.
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