Andrew Stevenson, secretary of the Society, said: “We understand that there are pressures to get business processed though the courts and that justice delayed is justice denied. However, it is worth reminding ourselves of Inner House warnings on the defects inherent in these media.

“In the 2008 case of ASC Anglo Scottish Concrete Ltd v Geminax Ltd Lord Eassie referred to the court’s distinct impression that much – if not all – of the difficulty which has arisen for consideration in this appeal flows from the sheriff’s willingness to deal with an opposed motion for summary decree by means of a telephone conference call discussion appointed for a very different purpose.”

Mr Stevenson added: “The practical problems of dealing with such a motion by that means are manifest. It is impossible for any party to tender any additional document; it is impossible to make any useful or effective reference to authorities; it is very difficult even to have regard to the terms of documents which have been lodged.

“We are aware that in Jackson v Hughes Dowdall [2008] CSIH 41, 8 July 2008, a differently constituted division of the Inner House remarked on the constitutional issues arising from the practice, in Glasgow, of transacting court business by private telephone conference calls and noted some of the practical issues arising.

“For our part, we express concern that the sheriff should have thought it appropriate to deal with an opposed motion for final decree in the private and, in practical terms, highly unsatisfactory, circumstances of a telephone conference call.”

“Technology and court users’ familiarity with it have moved on, but these logistical issues in respect of telephone conferencing are as problematic as 12 years ago. Indeed, many of the limitations identified by Lord Eassie exist now even in relation to videoconferencing. We would hope that once lockdown is alleviated the courts do not continue treating remote litigation as the norm.”