Law Society adds voice to criticism of civil justice fee proposals

The Society said the proposals would damage access to justice, particularly for vulnerable people and those bringing forward personal injury cases.

In its response to the Scottish government’s consultation on Scottish Court Fees, the Law Society said any move towards full cost recovery should be avoided and that the state has a duty to help people in achieve “equality of arms” in the courtroom.

The Society also stated that a proposal to introduce a 24 per cent rise in court fees would be “unjust and unjustifiable”.

In a separate response, the Faculty of Advocates suggested requiring a person to pay expensive court fees could be a breach of article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Syd Smith from the Law Society’s remuneration committee, representing pursuers’ solicitors, said: “We believe it is essential that the courts should provide an independent and impartial forum for resolving disputes between people or organisations and that the state has a duty to help those involved have equality of arms when their cases go to court.”

The Law Society has said that any new system for court fees would have to ensure they were proportionate, taking into account Lord Gill’s Review of the Scottish Civil Courts, and the findings of Sheriff Taylor in his Review of Expenses and Funding of Civil Litigation in Scotland.

Mr Smith added: “We think the focus of any review of court fees should be on redressing the balance between claimants and defenders in personal injury cases. However if the government’s aim is to have a system where 100% of the cost of the courts are covered by fees paid by those involved in the actions lodged, it will be vital to have proportionate fee levels.

“The consultation option to introduce a 24 per cent rise in court fees would represent an unjust and unjustifiable increase which would create a very real barrier to access to justice for claimants especially vulnerable people who have suffered life changing personal injuries.

“Any change to the current system also needs to recognise that there is not a level playing field between personal injury claimants and the insurance companies who are the defenders in those claims. Any changes which fail to recognise this problem risk widening the existing gap.”