Skip to content
Law Society of Scotland
Search
Find a Solicitor
Contact us
About us
Sign in
Search
Find a Solicitor
Contact us
About us
Sign in
  • For members

    • For members

    • CPD & Training

    • Membership and fees

    • Rules and guidance

    • Regulation and compliance

    • Journal

    • Business support

    • Career growth

    • Member benefits

    • Professional support

    • Lawscot Wellbeing

    • Lawscot Sustainability

  • News and events

    • News and events

    • Law Society news

    • Blogs & opinions

    • CPD & Training

    • Events

  • Qualifying and education

    • Qualifying and education

    • Qualifying as a Scottish solicitor

    • Career support and advice

    • Our work with schools

    • Lawscot Foundation

    • Funding your education

    • Social mobility

  • Research and policy

    • Research and policy

    • Research

    • Influencing the law and policy

    • Equality and diversity

    • Our international work

    • Legal Services Review

    • Meet the Policy team

  • For the public

    • For the public

    • What solicitors can do for you

    • Making a complaint

    • Client protection

    • Find a Solicitor

    • Frequently asked questions

    • Your Scottish solicitor

  • About us

    • About us

    • Contact us

    • Who we are

    • Our strategy, reports and plans

    • Help and advice

    • Our standards

    • Work with us

    • Our logo and branding

    • Equality and diversity

  1. Home
  2. News and events
  3. Legal news
  4. Scale back proposed remote hearings rules: Faculty

Scale back proposed remote hearings rules: Faculty

8th November 2021 | civil litigation | Civil court work

Proposals on remote hearings put forward by the Scottish Civil Justice Council (“SCJC”) would have a negative impact on access to justice, the quality of justice and inequality, the Faculty of Advocates has claimed.

Under draft rules for the conduct of court hearings after the COVID-19 emergency provisions expire, issued for consultation, remote hearings would become the default position except in most family actions, and ordinary proofs. All procedural hearings, judicial review proceedings and commercial actions would take place remotely, as would legal debates and all appeals unless raising a point of law of general public importance or particular difficulty.

Faculty believes the proposed rules strike the wrong balance. “We are particularly concerned about and strongly oppose the proposed adoption of a default setting for contentious and substantive hearings in the vast majority of civil cases in Scotland”, said Dean of Faculty Roddy Dunlop QC.

“There is little clear evidence, in our view, that suggests that litigants, the judiciary, counsel, solicitors or the general public desire a civil justice system which would operate in the way proposed by the draft rules.”

Faculty considers that while it is important to seek to retain, where appropriate, the beneficial elements of the way in which the civil courts have been forced to work during the pandemic, it is equally important to recognise that there are “a number of inefficiencies and inequalities that arise out of the use of virtual hearings”.

It would support a proposal to introduce a general default setting of virtual hearings for procedural business, supplemented by the ability of parties to apply for an in-person hearing, to be granted by the court if considered appropriate in the interests of justice.

“It is essential that the default position for contentious and substantive business should be in-person and in a courtroom”, the response states. “Parties should however enjoy the right to apply for a virtual hearing in whole or in part which the court can grant if considered appropriate in the interests of justice.”

Faculty's response includes its own set of draft rules, which it believes strike a better balance between retaining the benefits of the new way of working and the quality and integrity of the system which existed before.

The deadline for responses to the consultation has been extended to this coming Friday, 15 November.

Click here to access the full response.

Add To Favorites

Additional

  • News and events

In this section

  • Law Society news
  • CPD & Training
  • Blogs & opinions
  • Events
  • 75th Anniversary

Categories

  • civil litigation
  • criminal law
  • employment
  • obituary
  • careers
  • practice management
  • law society of scotland
  • government-administration
  • welfare/benefits
  • family-child law
  • reparation
  • professional regulation
  • property (non-commercial)
  • insolvency
  • consumer
  • human rights
  • mental health-adult incapacity
  • planning/environment
  • europe
  • information technology
  • immigration
  • education-training
  • executries
  • corporate
  • commercial property
  • agriculture-crofting
  • dispute resolution
  • risk management
  • intellectual property
  • client relations
  • tax
  • licensing
  • banking-financial services
  • trusts-asset management
  • reviews
  • opinion
  • For the public
  • Research and policy
  • Regulation
  • Journal online news
  • interview

News Archive

  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013

Related articles

  • Tea pickers' claim better brought in Kenya: Inner House
  • Ministers set out justice programme through to 2026
  • Fee rises and more cases raise legal aid bill by 14%
  • SLAB consults about A&A and ABWOR policies
Law Society of Scotland
Atria One, 144 Morrison Street
Edinburgh
EH3 8EX
If you’re looking for a solicitor, visit FindaSolicitor.scot
T: +44(0) 131 226 7411
E: lawscot@lawscot.org.uk
About us
  • Contact us
  • Who we are
  • Strategy reports plans
  • Help and advice
  • Our standards
  • Work with us
Useful links
  • Find a Solicitor
  • Sign in
  • CPD & Training
  • Rules and guidance
  • Website terms and conditions
Law Society of Scotland | © 2025
Made by Gecko Agency Limited