Scottish Court Fees 2026-2027: Analysis of Consultation and Scottish Government Response

Responses to questions

Question 1

Do you agree that court fees should rise by 3% commencing 1 April 2026 and a further 3% commencing 1 April 2027?

Yes: 3

No: 5

Not answered: 0

16. Most of the respondents who answered this question were clear that they did not approve of increasing court fees, expressing the view that existing fees already act as a barrier to justice. Several organisations emphasised that fees are often incurred at times of crisis such as debt enforcement, eviction, family breakdown, or employment disputes and that any further increase risks deterring people from pursuing or defending claims.

17. Some respondents identified the position of those of limited means but above exemption thresholds as a particular concern. Money advice organisations noted that even modest, inflation-linked increases can have a disproportionate effect on households already struggling with the cost of living. Citizens Advice Scotland provided evidence that many people routinely run out of money before payday. APIL highlighted the broader public interest in access to the courts and observed that court systems, like hospitals and schools, are public services that should not rely primarily on charges to users.

18. A number of responses raised human rights concerns, noting that access to justice must be “practical and effective” under Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Amnesty International UK warned that further fee increases risk undermining this right, particularly for those pursuing equality and human rights cases. They also referred to the Supreme Court’s judgment in the UNISON judgement, which held that treating courts as just another public service “misunderstands the constitutional right of access to the courts”.

19. Four organisations, all of whom oppose the current system of fee charging, drew specifically on the UNISON judgement. Amnesty International UK highlighted Lord Hope’s observation that the ability to enforce rights and the knowledge that remedies exist underpins “everyday economic and social relations”. Money Advice Scotland warned that recent large fee increases, including the 10% out‑of‑cycle rise in November 2024, already risk breaching the proportionality required by the UNISON judgement.

20. FOIL singled out the cumulative scale of increases over the past decade, providing a detailed list of twelve fee rises since 2015, many above inflation. They argued that the lack of a coherent long-term approach to court fees makes further increases unjustifiable, particularly so soon after the 2024 uplifts.

21. A substantial theme emerging from respondents, particularly FOIL and several advice sector organisations, was the need for a clear Scottish Government policy on court fees before any further increases are implemented. FOIL noted that Scottish Government explanations for past increases have ranged from supporting digitalisation to achieving full cost recovery, without any consultation on whether full cost recovery should be the policy. They stated that “no increases are justified until there has been a consultation on policy”, and called for transparency on SCTS income and expenditure since 2015. The money advice sector similarly argued that fee increases should be deferred until the planned wider review is complete, warning that raising fees before establishing policy risks embedding structural unfairness.

Question 2

Do you consider a two-year inflationary increase to be a reasonable approach to maintaining the value of court fee income while longer-term reform is being developed?

Yes: 3

No: 3

Not answered: 2

22. Views were mixed. Those in favour (including SCTS, APIL and the Law Society of Scotland) regarded a time‑limited inflationary approach as a pragmatic measure to maintain the real‑terms value of court fee income pending structural reform. APIL stressed that uplifts should be limited strictly to inflation and must not result in over‑recovery.

23. Those opposed (including Amnesty International UK, Money Advice Scotland and Citizens Advice Scotland) argued that consecutive increases risk compounding hardship for people who are already financially vulnerable. They considered that proceeding with increases ahead of the wider review could prejudice the reform process and entrench unfairness.

24. FOIL responded, ‘don’t know’, stating that the question could not be answered in the absence of a clear and consulted‑upon policy framework for court fees. The Faculty of Advocates did not answer this question directly, while reiterating their opposition to further increases.

Question 3

Do you agree that, in parallel with the proposed fee increases, a full review of the court fee structure should be undertaken by the Court Fee Working Group?

Yes: 3

No: 0

Not answered: 5

25. Most respondents who addressed this question supported a full review by the Court Fee Working Group, describing it as necessary and overdue. Supportive respondents emphasised the need for simplification, transparency and fairness, with a strong focus on affordability and user experience.

26. While generally supportive of a review, several respondents cautioned against conducting it in parallel with fee increases. They argued that raising fees in advance of reform risks limiting the scope of recommendations and entrenching the status quo.

27. FOIL answered, ‘don’t know’, contending that the core policy questions (including whether full cost recovery should be pursued) require Scottish Government consultation, with the Working Group informing design and implementation rather than setting policy.

Question 4

Do you have any comments on the proposed timing, scope or priorities of the future public consultation on court fee reform, including the work of the Court Fee Working Group?

Yes: 5

No: 0

Not answered: 3

28. Respondents who commented generally welcomed a future consultation but called for an accelerated timetable so that the outcome of the review can inform decisions before any further increases are implemented. They recommended a broad scope focusing on affordability, proportionality and access to justice, rather than solely administrative or technical adjustments.

29. Specific priorities suggested included: clear articulation of policy aims (including whether full cost recovery is an objective); assessment of cumulative fee burdens across case stages; consideration of ability‑to‑pay and more flexible exemptions; analysis of behavioural impacts (including deterrence from early engagement); and meaningful engagement with advice providers and people with lived experience of debt and poverty.

30. Some respondents (including FOIL) asked for transparency over the membership, remit and timescales of the Court Fee Working Group, publication of data on the SCTS cost base and income since 2015, and clarity on how review recommendations will be consulted upon and implemented.

Question 5

Do you have any other comments or suggestions, including any minor amendments to the current court fee structure or exemptions, that you feel should be considered?

Yes: 4

No: 0

Not answered: 4

31. Advice sector organisations proposed targeted amendments to strengthen affordability protections: extending or making more flexible fee exemptions for people experiencing problem debt or eviction; introducing temporary or discretionary exemptions for acute hardship where people fall just outside existing criteria; regularly uprating exemption thresholds to reflect the cost of living; and improving signposting and plain‑language information.

32. Respondents also called for clearer guidance and discretion for courts to waive or reduce fees based on current financial circumstances (not solely historic income), with monitoring to ensure consistency across Scotland.

33. APIL suggested that the table of judicial fees should be updated to reflect modern practice and ensure that significant categories of necessary work are properly remunerated. They also emphasised that court service levels should be reflective of fees paid.

Question 6

Do you consider that any of the proposals in this consultation paper are likely to have a disproportionate effect on people or communities who face discrimination or social exclusion owing to race, age, gender, disability, sexual orientation, or any other factor?

Yes: 2

No: 0

Not answered: 6

34. Two respondents considered that the proposals are likely to have disproportionate effects, citing disabled people and older people (particularly those on fixed incomes) as groups who may be more sensitive to incremental fee increases. They emphasised the risk of compounding existing inequalities unless mitigated by strengthened exemptions and flexible affordability protections.

35. One respondent answered, ‘don’t know’ and offered no detailed comment. Others did not answer this question directly, though some provided broader observations about affordability pressures across low‑income and marginalised communities.

Question 7

Please provide any further comments on the proposals set out in this consultation in the box below.

Answered: 1

Not answered: 7

36. There was only one response to this question. The respondent considered that those in vulnerable groups suffered most from discrimination and crime and that they should be protected by scrapping court fees.

Scottish Government Response

Summary

37. The Scottish Government appreciates the thoughtful and detailed submissions received from organisations across the justice, legal, public, and third sectors. Having carefully considered the range of views expressed, the government decided to proceed with the inflationary increases of 3% from 1 April 2026 and a further 3% from 1 April 2027.

38. These uplifts are aligned with anticipated inflation and represent a modest adjustment compared to the more substantial increases implemented in November 2024.

39. The Government recognises the concerns raised regarding affordability, cumulative fee impacts, and access to justice. For this reason, the government will concurrently progress a full review of the fee structure through the Court Fee Working Group, followed by a public consultation.

40. The system of fee exemptions and civil legal aid will remain central to ensuring that those unable to pay are protected, and the Scottish Government will monitor the impact of any changes on users and protected groups.

41. The details of the changes and further explanation of the Scottish Government’s position is provided below.

Charging in Civil Courts

42. Many respondents queried the basis for charging court fees, feeling that the courts should provide a fully-funded public service, supported by the taxpayer and free to the user. These respondents generally referenced the UNISON judgment in the Supreme Court regarding fees in the Employment Tribunal as supportive of the proposition that increased court fees imperilled access to justice.

43. The Scottish Government does not propose to abolish court fees such that the costs of funding the courts would fall entirely on the taxpayer.

44. There are a number of policy arguments both for and against charging fees in the civil courts and any government needs to take a balanced policy approach. Good policy reasons not to charge fees can and do arise where public services deliver a ‘public good’. Clearly, these types of benefit to wider society do arise within the court system.

45. The civil courts exist for people to protect and enforce their personal rights, so it can be argued, as many respondents did, that it is inappropriate to charge for the privilege of exercising those rights. The resolution of some individual cases can also contribute to the clarification of the civil law and the building of case law precedent.

46. The Scottish Government accepts that society benefits from both those outcomes, but we do not believe that they alone provide a sufficient justification for the government to completely eliminate charging.

47. In addition to any ‘public good’, both the pursuer and the defender in each individual case will derive a ‘private good’ from settling their dispute and the government considers that some form of financial contribution from end users can be justified given that a private benefit is derived. The public purse is not unlimited, and taxpayers expect their governments to make choices on their behalf between all of the competing demands on the public purse.

48. When making those choices, the Scottish Government contributes significantly to the administration of justice through taxpayer contribution, but there is a need to limit the demands on the public purse. We will continue to look to the users of the civil courts to help fund those particular public services. An affordable ‘user pays’ model, with appropriate exemptions and legal aid available to those eligible, is considered appropriate for the civil courts Scotland.

49. The policy decisions taken by the Scottish Government through the statutory fee charging regime, result in a balanced approach. The end user is only asked to make a reasonable contribution towards the cost of running the civil courts (where they can afford so to do). The taxpayer will fund the remainder through:

• some costs being met through the fee exemptions regime (where the end user does not have the means to pay fees themselves),
• and other direct support to SCTS through its budget allocation.

50. On top of the fee exemptions regime there is a generous system of civil legal aid that ensures litigants who need help not only do not have to pay fees, but also receive assistance with paying for legal advice, assistance and representation.

51. The Scottish Government is aware that there will be litigants whose income is just above the thresholds for qualification for legal aid or exemption from court fees. This will always be the case at whatever level the thresholds are set. Careful consideration has been given to these thresholds, and they are believed to be fair. To that end, we have raised the level of income that can be earned whilst still qualifying for court fee exemption via certain benefit-related exemptions to £26,437.

52. The Scottish Government has also taken note of the wider context. Whilst recognising that not all meritorious cases succeed, many litigants bringing forward strong cases will have their court fees paid by the opposing party following success. Other litigants will not face paying a fee as their claims are supported by no-win, no-fee specialists. For most litigants the court fee is only a small portion of the cost of litigation, and the cost of legal advice is a far greater consideration. These considerations, taken alongside the exemption's regime, mean that is hard to discern many situations where the court fee is a serious deterrent to proceeding with legal action.

53. Several respondents argued that recent increases, especially the 10% uplift in November 2024, had already placed additional pressure on court users. The Scottish Government notes these concerns, but emphasises that the proposed 3% increases are modest, inflation‑linked, and significantly smaller than previous adjustments, providing a more stable and predictable approach.

The Supreme Court judgement and Cost Recovery

54. Some respondents referred to the Supreme Court judgment in R. (on the application of UNISON) v Lord Chancellor when considering the impact of court fees on access to justice. The Scottish Government notes that the judgment did not question the principle of charging court fees, but held that fees must not prevent effective access to justice. The circumstances considered in that case, where fees rose from zero to high four‑figure sums and were followed by a 70% fall in claims, are significantly different from the position in Scotland. Court fees have been a consistent feature of the Scottish civil justice system, and there is no evidence that previous increases, including the 10% uplift introduced on 1 November 2024, have reduced the number of cases raised. Court fees also constitute a relatively small proportion of overall litigation costs, and Scotland continues to maintain a comprehensive civil legal aid framework and targeted system of fee exemptions to protect those who cannot afford to pay.

55. Respondents also raised concerns about an assumed policy of “full‑cost recovery”. The Scottish Government confirms that this is not current policy. Full‑cost recovery has never been achieved in practice, and recent and proposed fee changes are limited to modest inflationary adjustments. Public subsidy remains an integral part of the civil justice system, and ensuring that court fees do not create unreasonable barriers to access to justice continues to be the overriding priority.

Individuals with sufficient means (who do not qualify for legal aid or exemptions)

56. The main area of potential difficulty is for those whose earnings place them above the thresholds for legal aid and fee exemptions. However, the Scottish Government has seen no evidence that court fees at current levels are unaffordable for this group, particularly given that fees form only a small part of overall litigation costs and a comprehensive system of legal aid and exemptions remains in place for those who cannot pay. For this reason, it would not be accurate to characterise such individuals generally as “people of limited means”.

57. With such an agreement, a pursuer pays nothing up front to the cost of a court case. The provider of the success fee agreement (who could be either a solicitor or a claims management company) will be liable for the outlays incurred in providing the service. The provider is to be entitled to the success fee under the agreement if the case is won (which is subject to a cap for various types of proceedings) and any expenses recovered from the opponent. Success fee agreements are said to be popular with clients since they are simple to understand, make the cost of the litigation more predictable and mean that the client does not have to pay anything until the case is concluded.

58. Further, an action under group procedure in the Court of Session, which allows a group of similarly affected persons to bring a single claim attracts a single fee instead of multiple individual claims each incurring separate fees.

Additional Matters raised

59. A number of other specific suggestions were identified during the consultation.

Qualified One-Way Costs Shifting (QOCS)

60. QOCS purpose is to increase access to justice by limiting a pursuer’s (claimant’s) exposure to paying defenders’ legal expenses. Some respondents, particularly FOIL, questioned the interaction between court fees and QOCS, suggesting that fee increases could place disproportionate burdens on defenders.

61. The Scottish Government notes these concerns but reiterates that court fees form only a small proportion of litigation costs.

62. QOCS was designed to address systemic imbalances in personal injury litigation, and the Scottish Government does not consider that modest inflationary increases undermine the principles underpinning the 2018 reforms.

Fee Exemptions and Affordability

63. As has been noted, the Scottish Government views court fees exemptions as being absolutely fundamental to protecting access to justice. It is therefore committed to ensuring that the system is as robust as possible in ensuring that the most vulnerable members of society are protected.

64. The Scottish Government notes that there could be cases where an individual of limited means who would be financially eligible for civil legal aid or UK benefits is not in receipt of these at the relevant time, for example because they are waiting for an eligibility assessment to be completed. Such an individual experiencing hardship may make an application to the Scottish Welfare Fund which provides a safety net in a disaster or emergency.

65. Organisations, particularly in the advice sector, suggested strengthening fee exemptions and improving consistency of application. The Scottish Government agrees that exemptions are central to protecting access to justice. This will form part of the Court Fee Working Group’s considerations, including clearer signposting and guidance, consistent application across courts, consideration of temporary or hardship‑based exemptions.