A Member's Bill aimed at encouraging apologies in civil legal disputes has been passed by the Scottish Parliament.
The Apologies (Scotland) Bill renders evidence of an apology inadmissible in court. The idea is that the legal certainty offered by the Bill will allow more cases to be resolved out of court as apologies will be more forthcoming, particularly in forums such as mediation where apologies can be considered essential to settlement. It is aimed at parties who feel aggrieved by a wrongful act against them but are not interested in the financial award that the court can order should they be successful.
Despite its good intentions, there has been criticism from both the Faculty of Advocates and the Law Society of Scotland, who have suggested that the new law might blur the distinction between expressing regret and admitting liability. So what will actually change?
What will change?
In reality, the Bill is less of a radical innovation and more of a clarification of existing law. Under the law as it currently stands, an apology cannot in itself amount to an admission of liability. In Muir v Glasgow Corporation, Lord Thankerton warned that undue weight should not be given to a witness who expresses regret in the witness box. He envisioned a scenario where the apology was admitted as one of a number of pieces of evidence on which liability may be found.
Similarly, in Bryson v BT Rolatruc Ltd, Lord Osborne noted that the court must consider all the evidence of what happened before the event, and not the subsequent apology. Lady Smith agreed with this approach in George King v Quarriers, stating that the fact that an apology was made was "quite irrelevant".
On this view, the Bill will simply render this one piece of evidence inadmissible: the court will still be able to consider other evidence in order to determine liability. The intention is that defenders cannot 'hide behind' the new rules. Despite this assertion, the Faculty of Advocate have raised concerns that an admission of liability that would normally be admissible as evidence may now become inadmissible if it is 'wrapped up' in the form of an apology. It remains to be seen how the courts will deal with this issue.
Finally, the Bill will not apply to criminal cases, fatal accident inquires or defamation actions.
Our comments
It seems that the purpose of this Bill is not so much to change the law but to influence people's perception of the law. It is hoped that apologies may be more forthcoming in an environment where people are less fearful of falling into a legal trap. This in turn would help foster better relations between the parties and allow for more cases to be settled out of court. Will the aims of the Bill be successful? Only time will tell.
Disclaimer
The material contained in this article is of the nature of general comment only and does not give advice on any particular matter. Recipients should not act on the basis of the information in this e-update without taking appropriate professional advice upon their own particular circumstances.
