Since the start of March 2024 the Court of Session has refused 10 requests for leave to appeal decisions of the SLCC. By comparison, there were only two leave to appeal hearings where the court granted leave to appeal in the same period.

All of the refused appeals were brought by unrepresented complainers unhappy with the SLCC’s decision that their complaint was not eligible for investigation, or with the outcome of an investigation. In refusing leave to appeal, the court has indicated that they would have had no realistic prospect of success.

The statutory right to appeal decisions of the SLCC is set out in the organisation’s founding legislation, but the Regulation of Legal Services (Scotland) Bill, currently progressing through parliament, proposes replacing it with a right to review by an independent committee.

Commenting on the cases, case investigation manager, Stephen Chubb said: “While we welcome the court’s decisions in these cases, we continue to be very concerned about the impact of this appeal route on everyone involved.

“The time and resources spent by the SLCC preparing for these cases is significant, with legal costs alone averaging more than £7,000. If we are successful, the court will usually require those costs to be met by the appellant, although the expenses granted never cover our costs in full, so there is always a shortfall.

“For the lay individual bringing the appeal, making an application for leave to the Court of Session is daunting enough. But if they’re unsuccessful, they will likely find themselves liable for many thousands of pounds of expenses. 

“Where we are not granted expenses, or where we are granted but cannot recover them, those costs fall to be met by the wider legal profession through our general levy.

“In addition to the costs incurred, the Court of Session appeals process takes many months, and sometimes years, to be concluded. This can significantly delay the investigation of complaints, impacting both the people bringing complaints to us, and the practitioners complained about who have complaints hanging over them for all that time.

“This is an unsatisfactory process for everyone involved.

“We believe the review route proposed in the legislation provides a more accessible process for someone to raise a concern about a decision, and, where appropriate, for us to correct any errors swiftly and without the significant time and cost of a court appeal process. That is in everyone’s interests, and we hope parliament will continue to support those proposals as the bill progresses.”