Ahsan Mustafa

The Scottish Civil Justice Council (SCJC) occupies an important position in the administration of justice in Scotland. It was established on 28 May 2013 under the Scottish Civil Justice Council and Criminal Legal Assistance Act 2013, following Lord Gill’s Scottish Civil Courts Review. Replacing the Court of Session Rules Council and Sheriff Court Rules Council, its responsibilities extend beyond preparing draft court rules to keeping the civil justice system under review and advising on its development.

Led by Lord Pentland, the publication of the council’s Strategic Plan 2026–2029 provides a timely opportunity to reflect on what effective civil justice reform should seek to achieve. The plan is focused around four strategic themes. Enhancing civil justice through digital innovation, Scotland as a forum of choice, maintaining the rules and sustainable delivery.

The principles underpinning the council’s work are straightforward: civil justice should be fair, accessible and efficient, and procedural rules should be clear and readily understood. Translating those principles into practice, however, is considerably more challenging.

As a solicitor practising in civil litigation, I regularly see how procedural requirements affect the cost, duration and conduct of proceedings. Rules are essential to ensuring fairness and consistency, but procedural complexity can sometimes become an obstacle to the resolution of the underlying dispute.

In debt recovery litigation, for example, obtaining decree is not necessarily the end of the process. Enforcement may involve further expense, procedural steps and difficult questions about proportionality. Equally, those defending proceedings must have a meaningful opportunity to challenge claims and advance legitimate defences.

A civil justice system must protect both interests. Efficiency should not come at the expense of fairness, but neither should fairness be equated with unnecessary procedural complexity.

Digitalisation presents another significant opportunity. Electronic processes can reduce administrative burdens, improve communication and make court services more accessible. Yet the success of digital reform should not be measured solely by the number of processes moved online.

For represented parties and experienced practitioners, digital systems may offer considerable advantages. For party litigants, particularly those with limited technological skills or access to suitable equipment, the experience may be different.

The challenge is therefore to design procedures around the needs of court users rather than expect every court user to adapt effortlessly to a new system.

This requires meaningful engagement with those who experience civil justice from different perspectives: the judiciary, solicitors, court staff, businesses, individuals and organisations supporting vulnerable litigants.

It also requires a willingness to examine whether reforms achieve their intended objectives once implemented. Consultation before reform is important, but evaluating its practical consequences afterwards is equally valuable.

The SCJC has an opportunity to help shape a system in which procedural rules facilitate rather than frustrate the resolution of disputes.

Ultimately, successful civil justice reform should not be judged simply by whether proceedings become faster or more technologically advanced. It should be judged by whether people can enforce their rights, defend their interests and resolve disputes fairly, without unnecessary expense, complexity or delay.

That is the practical test against which every proposed procedural reform should be measured.

Ahsan Mustafa is a senior associate at Aberdein Considine LLP