In 1997, the Lord President set up a working party, under the
chairmanship of Lord Coulsfield, to review practice in the Court of
Session. At that time, personal injury actions constituted 66% of
the court's business. 98.2% of these cases settled without going to
trial. A third of those settlements were concluded within the last
week before trial. For many years, there had been concern about the
waste of money and court resources caused by late, particularly
door of the court, settlements in personal injury actions.
As a member of the working party, Michael Jones believed that
much of that waste could be avoided if parties were required to
exchange information earlier in the litigation process and if the
focus of the parties' preparation could be moved from the first
morning of the proof or trial. He conceived and designed the
principles of what was to become the 2003 scheme for the running of
personal injury actions in the Court of Session. As well as
providing for the early exchange of information, the new procedure
requires that a settlement meeting is to be held some weeks before
the proof or trial, at which negotiations are compulsory. The focus
of preparation has thus been brought forward to that meeting.
In an evaluation of the 2003 scheme, conducted for the Scottish
Executive and published in March 2007, the researchers reported
that the new rules had resulted in earlier settlement and in a
marked reduction in delays, compared with actions initiated prior
to their introduction and as compared with actions initiated but
not proceeding under the scheme. The success of the new procedure
has brought about substantial savings in costs for defenders.
Taking that approach forward, we at Simpson & Marwick are
committed to the early and effective resolution of disputes on our
clients' behalf, at a reasonable cost. We believe that litigation
is only one of a number of dispute resolution options that may be
available in any given case. Our general approach is to identify
the strengths and weaknesses of our client's position at an early
stage. That may involve further investigation. The papers are
evaluated by someone who is familiar with current judicial
attitudes and policies, considerations which may be at least as
important as the current state of the law in determining the
outcome of litigation. Where appropriate, we will recommend
negotiation or mediation.