Scottish legislators have been warned not to simply ‘bolt on’ reforms from south of the border in their Jackson-style review of civil litigation.

A public consultation closed last Friday on an 18-month review of the Scottish civil litigation system being carried out by Sheriff Principal James Taylor. Its remit covers different models of funding, including conditional fee agreements and third-party litigation funding. A possible ban on referral fees is also up for discussion.

The review is being conducted against the background of concern about litigants crossing the border in search of more favourable treatment. It asks whether damages-based agreements, which the Jackson reforms would introduce in England and Wales, would create an incentive for Scottish claimants to litigate there.

In its response, the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers urges Holyrood not to blindly follow the Jackson reforms, and asks for differences in social structure and culture to be taken into account. ‘A one-size-fits-all approach to reform is not the answer,’ it says.

Taylor’s consultation paper says that the English costs regime is already more favourable from the claimant’s viewpoint, with little risk and more generous recovery of expenses than in Scotland. The Forum of Insurance Lawyers agrees with claimant groups that radical revision of the rules is not necessary.

David Taylor, FOIL’s Scottish executive representative, added: ‘A litigant ought to have a proportionate financial stake in his litigation and share the risks. ‘Many of the problems which have arisen in England and Wales are precisely due to the disconnection from the risks and expenses of the process caused by the widespread actions of claims management companies.’