Appointment of 'sifting judges' will unclog the courts and identify those truly in need

IT WAS recently announced that judges are to be appointed to sift out frivolous compensation claims that are clogging up Scotland's civil courts.

Spurious claims give our so-called "compensation culture" an even worse name, and anything that can be done to block them is very welcome.

At present, anyone can raise a court action for anything. The defender can ask for the case to be thrown out, but only at the debate stage, which is quite far down the line. By that time they can have expended a great deal of energy and several thousands of pounds opposing a case with no foundation.

In theory, legal costs can be sought from the claimant, but individuals who proceed with daft cases are usually men of straw who have already wasted what little money they have on court dues.

The problem has arisen because some members of the public mistakenly think you can claim compensation if something in your life goes wrong.

I have had to reject many more claims than I have taken on. Examples include a lad who wanted to sue rock band Bon Jovi because his ears were still buzzing after one of their concerts and a man who sought compensation from his ex-wife's lover for the distress he felt when he imagined them together.

Even people whose job involves rules and regulations can get it majestically wrong. A football referee once asked me if he could make a claim after he slipped on a soggy, wet pitch and broke his ankle. He was critical of the decision to play the game in these conditions. It turned out that the decision was his.

It is difficult to succeed with a claim for compensation under Scots law because you have to prove two things – that someone was negligent and also that you have suffered as a direct result.

Sometimes you can prove one but not the other. I had a case involving a man who suffered blinding headaches. He consulted his GP, who sent him packing with a bottle of aspirin. The man was too weak to walk out of the surgery, sat down in the waiting room and died.

The GP was clearly negligent, but there was no case because the poor guy would have died even if his GP had done the right thing and referred him to hospital.

In another case, a TV company landed a helicopter in a wheat field on a Hebridean island and destroyed most of the crop. The next day there was a mini hurricane that would have destroyed the crop in any event. No claim.

A "sifting judge" could kill some of these cases at birth but there are additional ways we could help unclog the courts.

Often, clients are not looking for money. If, for instance, a child has died due to alleged medical negligence then no amount of cash could make a difference. Similarly, there are people who, when children, were abused in children's homes. What most wanted was not a cheque, but an apology and an admission the abuse had taken place.

The difficulty is that the defenders are told by their advisers never to apologise as it could be used against them. What we need is a system whereby a defender can say sorry without repercussions.

So let's welcome the new sifting process and continue to explore methods of persuading the public that jumping on the compensation bandwagon can lead to the wrong destination.

• Cameron Fyfe is a partner at Ross Harper