Scottish Civil Courts Review The Sheriff Appeal Court's foundation was one of the results of, then
Lord Justice Clerk,
Lord Gill's Scottish Civil Courts Review (published in 2009), which identified several ways in which
civil justice could be expedited through improving access to justice, reducing costs for
parties litigant, and reducing the time to conclusion of cases. Lord Gill was critical of the civil justice system in place at the time, describing it as "a Victorian model that had survived by means of periodic piecemeal reforms", and concluding that, "It is failing the litigant and it is failing society."
Civil appeals Lord Gill identified that of civil appeals to the
Inner House came from the sheriff courts, and that of appeals from sheriff courts came direct (bypassing the sheriffs principal.) Most of these appeals did not raise complex
questions of law and thus could be dealt with by a new national court. So he recommended the creation of the Sheriff Appeal Court to deal with these appeals. He did propose that, with leave, further appeals could be made to the Inner House, and this would allow for complex or important questions of law to be dealt with by the
Senators of the College of Justice in the
Supreme Courts of Scotland. Lord Gill's proposal was to extended the ability to apply for leave to appeal to
small claims actions, where no such ability had existed before. The
Scottish Government, in 2010, accepted the analysis by Lord Gill there were problems facing the civil courts of Scotland. The Scottish Government recognised that costs were rising, there were excessive delays, and too many rescheduled hearings. They agreed that the courts system should be able to manage at which level a case was heard. In Scotland it had been up to the
pursuer to choose whether to initiate a case in either the
sheriff courts or the
Court of Session, as they both shared
concurrent jurisdiction for all civil cases with a value greater than . The Scottish Government proposed increasing this limit to , but the final limit was set at by Section 39 of the
Courts Reform (Scotland) Act 2014. They also agreed with the establishment of the Sheriff Appeal Court to handle civil appeals from the sheriff courts of Scotland. The
Justice Committee considered the proposals in the
Courts Reform (Scotland) Bill and published a report on 9 May 2014. In that report the Committee agreed with the creation of a Sheriff Appeal Court to hear both civil appeals and appeals for summary proceedings in the justice of the peace and sheriff courts. They did stipulate that appeals should be heard in the
sheriffdom from which the case originates. The Committee also noted support for the establishment for the Sheriff Appeal Court from the
Scottish Legal Aid Board, Compass Chambers,
Justice Scotland, the
Law Society of Scotland, and
Citizens Advice Scotland. As there was an existing
common law test that required a sheriff court to sanction the use of counsel in a case. The Faculty was also concerned that removing low-value cases from the Court of Session would deny advocates who are early in their career the opportunity develop their litigation skills, and thus make it harder for them to be ready to handle high-value or complex cases. Thus, they concluded the reforms could harm the long term viability of the legal profession in Scotland. As it was, the Scottish Parliament passed the Courts Reform (Scotland) Act 2014 which, in Section 108, requires any sheriff court (including the Sheriff Appeal Court) to grant sanction for the use of counsel where the court considers that the case is likely to be difficult or complex, or important or of requisite value. At the same time no
party should be allowed an advantage over an other through the use of an advocate. On 1 January 2016,
Scottish Ministers by
Scottish Statutory Instrument commenced the provisions of the Court Reform (Scotland) Act 2014 to extended civil appeals to the Sheriff Appeal Court.
Performance The first ten years of the Sheriff Appeal Court were celebrated as highly successful in reducing delays in process and in enhancing consistency of sentencing. Between 2016 and October 2025 there were only 19 motions to remit an appeal to the Inner House. ==Remit and jurisdiction==