The body that represents Scotland's top lawyers has spoken out against government plans to lift the legal time limit for survivors of historical abuse to seek damages in the courts.

The Scottish Government has already announced it intends to end the current three-year time bar for civil action in cases of historical child abuse which has been in place since 1964.

But the Faculty of Advocates has warned against the change, claiming the existing system, where claims dating back more than three years are examined on a case-by-case basis, provides "fairness to both parties".

"In our view, any waiver of the limitation regime in relation to such claims ought to be made on a case-by-case basis, as at present," the faculty argued.

"We do not agree that the current regime invariably leads to a pursuer's case failing ... However, it does permit the fairness to both parties of allowing a case to proceed to be scrutinised and assessed."

Education Secretary Angela Constance announced the plans to lift the time bar in May at the same time as she revealed lawyer Susan O'Brien QC had been appointed to chair a public inquiry into historic cases of child abuse in care.

Speaking about ministers' intention to end the time bar, Ms Constance said: "It can take decades for a survivor to have the strength to challenge their abuser in court.

''Having listened to survivors and examined the legal position carefully, I can announce that this Scottish Government intends to lift the three-year time bar on civil action in cases of historical childhood abuse since September 1964. We will consult on how best to do this in the summer."

While the faculty accepted the reasons for waiving the time bar in such cases "may be attractive in the generality", the Scottish Government's consultation notes that in a number of cases "pursuers have been unable to provide a cogent justification for failing to raise proceedings within the required timescale and frequently for a significant period thereafter".

In its response to the consultation, the Faculty of Advocates said it "would tend to agree with this observation".

The defender in civil cases is "frequently the institutional care provider rather than the alleged abuser, who will typically either have died or will be financially unable to meet any claim".

The faculty added that care institutions "are obviously under an inherent disadvantage in defending such claims, as they may have no direct knowledge of the alleged abuse and may also have difficulty in obtaining evidence relating to allegations which frequently date back decades".

With the law allowing interest on any damages to be awarded at the rate of 8% per annum from the date the injury took place, the faculty said: "Given that allegations often date back decades in these cases, defenders may therefore be exposed to significant liabilities in terms of interest alone where a claim dates back decades."

A Scottish Government spokeswoman said: "In May the Scottish Government made clear that, following ministerial engagement with survivors of historic child abuse and engagement with stakeholders, including the Scottish Human Rights Commission and legal stakeholders, our intention is to remove the three-year limitation period, which currently constrains the rights of survivors of historical child abuse who wish to raise a claim for compensation through the civil courts. We have since consulted on the issue.

"We are currently reviewing responses to the consultation on how best to achieve our aim and are grateful to the Faculty for taking the time to respond formally to the consultation.

"As part of our wider engagement with survivors, we will continue to listen to the views of survivors of historical abuse who suffered abuse prior to September 26 1964, who are prevented from taking forward a civil action as a consequence of the law on prescription, as to how their needs and concerns may be addressed."