Sheriff Personal Injury Court is a Scottish court with exclusive competence on claims related to personal injury where the case is for work-related accident claims over Ã, Â £ 1,000, where the total claimed amount is in over Ã, Â £ 5,000, or where the sheriff in the local sheriff's court sends back to the Personal Injury Court. It has concurrent jurisdiction with the Session Court for all claims over Ã, Â £ 100,000, and concurrent jurisdiction with the local sheriff's court for personal injury claims in its competence.
The choice to use a local sheriff court or a Personal Injury Court is left to the pursuer. However, if the sheriff believes the case is complicated, requires special skills, then it can be sent to the Personal Injury Court.
The Sheriff Personal Injury Court was established on September 22, 2015 by the 2015 Sheriff All-Scotland (Sheriff Personal Injury Court) Court. The power to form an all-Scottish, specialist court comes from the Reform Court (Scotland) Act 2014.
Video Sheriff Personal Injury Court
History
Reviews of Scottish Civil Court
The Sheriff Personal Injury Court Foundation is one of the results of Lord Gill's Scottish Civil Courts Review (published in 2009), which identifies several ways in which civil justice can be accelerated through increased access to justice, the litigants, and reduce the time to settle the case. Lord Gill was very critical of the civil justice system at the time, describing it as "a surviving Victorian model by means of little reforms", and concludes that, "It fails in litigation and it is a failure of society."
All-Scotland specialist courts
Lord Gill's report identifies that many litigants and legal practitioners are pleased with the increase in personal injury claims in the Session Court by introducing new rules, but concluding that creating a Scottish specialist sheriff's court for personal injury claims is the best. selection. This will reduce the pressure on the Court of Session, and reduce the costs for litigation because they do not need to involve advocates or advocate lawyers because lawyers have the right of audience before the sheriff's court. At the same time, he allows pursuers to have a choice between a local sheriff's court or a new specialist court in Edinburgh.
exclusive jurisdiction
The report also recommends increasing the exclusive jurisdiction of the sheriff's court to all claims of less than Ã, Â £ 150,000. Similar proposals are finally applied, but with exclusive jurisdiction limited to claims of less than Ã, Â £ 100,000.
Dominic Scullion writes in The Scotsman in August 2015 commenting on the exclusive jurisdiction of the sheriff's court for claims of less than Ã, Â £ 100,000 and the creation of a Personal Injury Court. Scullion identifies that an advocate can only charge a separate fee for representation in the sheriff's court if the court declares that the case requires advice. If certification is not granted, advocates and lawyers must share the single fee paid by the client.
By no longer allowing to file claims of less than Ã, Â £ 100,000 in Court of Appeals, the Edinburgh Personal Injury Court can see the fees for lawyers being reduced because they do not have to travel to the local sheriff's court. The BTO lawyer identified that a special court should be more consistent in its judgment than is possible from local court sheriffs scattered throughout Scotland.
Trial test
In the 2nd volume of his review, Lord Gill also recommends that a new Personal Injury Court should be able to use both jury trials and Chapter 43 Session Court rules. Lord Gill concluded that judge-led courts tend to be more conservative in monetary awards, with the jury becoming more perceptive and ready to give greater numbers. Thus, the initial settlement (negotiated case) will result in larger settlements as a consequence. He recommends that the trial of the jury be true and not with exceptions.
Court Reform (Scotland) Act 2014
The Scottish Government responded to a report by Lord Gill in November 2010. After that, Lord Gill's recommendations were implemented in the Reform Court (Scotland) Act 2014, with a Personal Injury Court established by Sheriff All-Scotland (Sheriff Personal Injury Court) Court Order 2015.
Maps Sheriff Personal Injury Court
Remit and jurisdiction
Exclusive competence and concurrent jurisdiction
In Scotland, all monetary claims for sums not exceeding  £ 100,000 are in the exclusive jurisdiction of the sheriff's court, with the Court of Appeal having concurrent jurisdiction for sums over Ã,  £ 100,000. Thus, the Sheriff Personal Injury Court has exclusive competence but a concurrent jurisdiction with a local sheriff's court over claims relating to personal injury in which case for work-related accident claims over Ã, £ 1,000, or where the total amount claimed is in excess Ã,  £ 5,000. Where a sheriff believes that his case is so complex that it requires the expertise of a private sheriff's specialist, they can mail the case to the Sheriff Personal Injury Court.
Time limit
Any personal injury action taken to the sheriff's court, Personal Injury Court, or Court of Appeal is subject to a 3-year time limit.
Submit to Court of Session
Claims for personal injuries with values ​​under £ 100,000 may be sent to the Court of Appeal with a sheriff's request under Section 92 of the Court Reform (Scotland) Act 2014. A Lord Ordinary at the Outer House of Court of Session will determine whether the case can be sent. The decision of the Regular Lord is not subject to appeal, and if the request to submit fails then the case will continue in the Personal Injury Court or local sheriff's court.
Sending money to the Court of Appeals will usually be considered when the case has certain interests or complexities. This principle is incorporated into the Judicial Reform (Scottish) Act 2014, which states:
At the request of either party in the hearing, the sheriff may, at any stage, request the Court of Appeal to allow the trial to be tried before the Court if the sheriff considers that the interests or difficulties of the process make it appropriate to do so.
It is for a sheriff to determine whether a request to submit must be done or not.
Cases of the pelvic nets
In 2016, four cases were sent by Lord Boyd from Duncansby to Outer House at the request of Sheriff Katherine Mackie at Edinburgh Sheriff's Court because each case represented "considerable public interest". All cases are associated with vaginal tape and mesh products for the treatment of urinary incontinence or prolapse. In his judgment, Lord Boyd mentions:
- There are 350 cases related to pelvic floor products before the Session Court;
- All but one of the other cases appearing related to pelvic web products have been raised in the Session Court;
- Significant public interest is demonstrated through the cases filed on the Scottish Parliament's Petition Committee;
- Practical Direction no. 2 of the year 2015 adopted stating that the case of the pelvic mesh should be dealt with under the usual rules of cause under Chapter 42A of the Rules of the Court of Session 1994, to the designated ordinary God.
Procedures
Electronic disposal
Motions and interlocutors may and should be submitted to the Personal Injury Court by electronic means unless the application is brought to court to override this requirement. Court officials, under the direction of Sheriff Clerk of Edinburgh, were able to exercise quasi-judicial power to provide a "general and straightforward movement."
Chapter 43 Rules
Chapter 43 rules, first implemented by the Act of Sederunt of the Session Court in 2003, seeks to bring quick resolution through case negotiations by allowing for pre-proof discussions with all relevant details. It is recorded by the Scottish Court and the Tribunal Services that 95% of personal injury claims in the Session Court were settled before the evidence. As such, the rule is extended to a new Personal Injury Court.
Ordinary causes
All cases heard on the evidence by the Personal Injury Court are heard under the normal cause rules as defined by the Personal Injury Act of Sederunt of 2009 (as amended). The usual cause procedure is more complex than a small claim or cause of summary, and therefore a lawyer may be required because legal documents need to be drafted. Someone may represent themselves as litigants but many organizations including Shelter Scotland advise against doing so. Use of lay representatives is not allowed.
Trial test
Under Section 63 of the Court Reform (Scotland) Act 2014, a case submitted to a Personal Injury Court followed by a proof shall take the form of a jury trial. The jury will consist of 12 people, and may decide the decision by majority decision. If the pursuers and the defenders both agree, then the evidence can occur before the sheriff sits alone as a judge in the process of summarizing.
The first jury trial that took place at the Personal Injury Court was in the case of Peter Allan v Plexus Corp (UK) Limited , in which the defense has sought to have the case taken under the summary procedure. However, Sheriff Baird decided in August 2016 that his case could, and should, be heard before a jury.
Use of advice
There is no automatic right for a pursuer or defender to ask an advocate who instructs this case: the court must make such a determination. Section 108 of the Reform Court (Scottish) Act 2014 which requires a sheriff's court (including the Sheriff's Personal Injury Court) to impose sanctions on the use of legal counsel in which the court considers that the case may be difficult or complicated, or important or necessary. At the same time, no party may benefit more than others through the use of an advocate.
Sanction given
The use of advice (advocate) has been approved by Sheriff Reith QC in the case of Sarah Dow v M & amp; D Crolla Ltd , on March 14, 2016. Sheriff Reith QC provides sanctions for lawyers because the case is very important for pursuers. The BTO lawyer, on March 23, 2016, evaluated the implications of Dow v M & amp; D Crolla and V on behalf of J v M & amp; D (Leisure) Ltd identifies possible trends: Dow's claim is for the amount of 3 times its annual salary, and J acts on behalf of V , which is A child. Thus, the individual factor - as expressed in Act 2014 - is not a decisive element, but the cumulative effects of various factors that will make the sheriff likely to sanction.
Sanction denied
Instead, sanctions are not granted in December 2016 for personal injury cases under the causes of the summary. This case was heard in Livingston Sheriff Court by Sheriff Kinloch, and on that occasion the Sheriff refused sanctions for pursuers to advise. The pursuer, David Brown, has been informed that human rights defender Aviva Insurance is instructing a lawyer, and is seeking sanctions on the basis of equality of weapons . However, Sheriff Kinloch did not find that the case was complex, important, or required value and therefore the pursuer was represented by a lawyer.
Judge and office holder
The sheriffs appointed to hear the cases in the Personal Injury Court were all sheriffs in the Sheriffdom of Lothian and Borders, and were appointed to court by the Sheriff Chief of Lothian and Borders. In April 2017, all the personal injury sheriffs have been appointed by Sheriff Principal Mhairi Stephen.
Sheriff's personal injury
References
External links
- Official website
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments