Justice Secretary refuses to consider access to justice problems

Scotland’s Cabinet Secretary for Justice has refused to review the problems thrown up in Scottish bank charge cases, and denied there is any problem in Scots being able to take their bank to court to try and recover unfair overdraft charges. Recently, Scots using the accessible and consumer friendly small claims system have had their claims remitted to the ordinary sheriff court, at the request of UK banks, where legal expenses are potentially unlimited.

Following access to justice problems identified in the case of Walls v. Santander UK plc  the Shadow Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Richard Baker MSP, raised concerns over access to justice in such cases with Kenny MacAskill MSP. In a written response, Mr MacAskill said ‘I do not accept the argument that ordinary citizens in Scotland are denied basic rights to access justice’ and refuted any suggestion that there was a problem for Scots trying to recover unfair bank charges through the small claims court.

Mr MacAskill endorsed the sheriff’s conclusion in Walls v. Santander, that Scotland’s current civil court structure and legal aid system provided ‘sufficient’ access to justice from a human rights perspective. Mrs Walls has since lodged an application with the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. Mr MacAskill also stated that he was unable to review the small claims rules due to his ongoing consideration of Lord Gill’s Scottish Civil Court Review.

GLC's Mike Dailly said: “The Justice Secretary’s denial is a mantra which makes no sense. It displays an arrogance and failure to grasp some fundamental facts and principles. UK banks are successfully moving small claim bank charge cases to the ordinary sheriff court, and Scottish consumers are faced with dropping their claims for fear of expenses, or trying to get legal aid if they can – and even then, possibly having to pay a contribution to the legal aid board bigger than their claim”.

“What is particularly puzzling is that Mr. MacAskill refuses to accept any concern whatsoever about access to justice, but our client (Mrs Walls) would have had to drop her claim, had we not been able to get her case sisted pending an application to the European Court of Human Rights".

"The whole point of the small claims court is to provide access to justice for citizens without fear of cost: a remedy which is proportionate in cost to the level of the monetary dispute. But that fair principle of proportionality is being knocked out of the ball park by the current practice of UK banks in bank charge litigation. We don’t have class actions in Scotland, so individual consumers are finding it impractical or impossible to challenge bank charges in court”.

“Kenny MacAskill could easily fix this problem by changing the rules on expenses. We’ve suggested the cap on small claims expenses could travel with the case where it is remitted to the ordinary sheriff court. However, the Justice Secretary says he cannot even look at this issue because he is considering the Scottish Civil Courts Review. That is a non-excuse, which sends a very clear message to the 1 in 5 Scots hit with overdraft charges: the Justice Secretary isn’t interested”.

Priced out of justice?

The Herald has reported on the GLC case of Walls v. Santander UK plc, where Sheriff Cubie granted the defender's application for a bank charges claim to be remitted from small claims to ordinary cause procedure.

The effect of leaving the small claims system in Scotland, and indeed the UK, is that consumers lose the 'fixed limit' protection against an award of expenses in the event of failure. For example, you can sue for £3,000 and if unsuccessful your opponent would only recover £300 under small claims procedure in Scotland. However, expenses can quickly mount up in the ordinary court and as banks are using counsel to conduct their defences, litigation in the ordinary court will expose consumers to potential levels of expenses many times the value of their claim. 

For those on a low income civil legal aid may be available and GLC is in the process of applying for legal aid in some bank charges litigation which is proceeding under ordinary cause procedure. For those of modest means eligible for legal aid there will be a contribution to pay which may exceed the value of the dispute, making the dispute pointless. While for those ineligible for legal aid it may be equally impossible to proceed.

The Herald has called for greater competition in Scotland's banking sector, and we agree that is much needed in the consumer interest. However, the case of Walls illustrates a major flaw at the heart of Scotland's civil justice system. What's the point in having an accessible simplified tier of civil justice for low level claims if any powerful opponent can come along, up the ante, and 'price' you out of justice?  There is no right to appeal or review a decision to remit under the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1971.

Access to justice requires citizens to be able to access the courts at a cost proportionate to the value of their monetary claim. The small claims system help fulfils our state's article 6(1) requirement under the European Convention on Human Rights. But there is now a 'class of litigants' who are priced out of justice. GLC believes there is an obvious solution. The small claims fixed limit on expenses should 'travel' with the case.   This would ensure that the costs of resolving the dispute remained proportionate and fair having regard to the monetary value of the dispute.  This could be achieved by a minor statutory amendment.

GLC has made this law reform call in today's The Herald.  Unfortunately, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice in Scotland appears to have rejected our call without understanding the current legal position.  Kenny MacAskill said: "People are still able to raise bank charge cases in the small-claims court – this ruling does nothing to stop that".  Yes, but this ruling makes it crystal clear that all bank charge claims are susceptible to be removed from the small claims court.  This has already happened in other cases; in Walls we tried to stop it, and were unable to do so.  Unless the Scottish Government acts, many citizens in Scotland will be priced out of justice.

We are reminded of the parable from The Trial: “Before the Law stands a doorkeeper. . . . The doorkeeper sees that the man is nearing his end, and in order to reach his failing hearing, he roars to him: ‘No one else could gain admittance here, because this entrance was meant solely for you. I’m going to go and shut it now.’”

Bank charges update: remit from small claims to the ordinary court

One of the current strategies of UK banks in Scotland is to ask the court to remit cases from the small claims procedure (where expenses are capped) to ordinary cause procedure (where expenses are potentially unlimited).  Remit between different court procedures, or to a senior court, can be granted where there are difficult questions of law, or exceptionally complicated factual issues. 

From the consumer's point of view having a claim removed from the small claims system means either instructing a solicitor in the hope of obtaining civil legal aid, or dropping the claim unless you were prepared to risk court expenses several times the value of your claim in the event of failure. Legal aid is not straight-forward either, one has to pass all of the qualifying hurdles, and for those on a modest to good income, you may have to pay a financial contribution to the legal aid board in excess of the value of your claim; and if you win, it is not necessarily straight-forward that you won't have 'contra' expenses, or be required to pay some of your award back to the legal aid board. Things can get complicated with expenses.

The practical result of remit will be that some consumers will drop their claims as it becomes uneconomical or financially imprudent to pursue a case.  If that happens, access to justice will have been thwarted.  This raises fundamental questions about the proportionality of our justice system in relation to expenses, and whether bank charge claimants of modest means have the right to a 'fair hearing' before our courts, as guaranteed by Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

In the case of Walls v. Santander UK plc, counsel for the defender sought remit from small claims to the ordinary cause. Govan Law Centre opposed this application on behalf of the pursuer.  After lengthy submissions, Sheriff Cubie at Glasgow Sheriff Court made 'avizandum' (which means he will reflect upon the issues and provide a written judgment). Sheriff Cubie's Opinion is expected later this month. GLC will provide a further update in due course.