Scottish DR: case management and evidence

This subtopic provides guidance on how to progress a civil claim in the Scottish courts and the handling of evidence in a Scottish civil action.

For guidance on other key aspects of Scottish civil litigation, see the following overviews, which link through to more detailed guidance:

•
Scottish DR: key developments—overview
•
Scottish DR: courts and civil procedure—overview
•
Scottish DR: prescription and limitation—overview
•
Scottish DR: starting a claim—overview
•
Scottish DR: expenses and funding—overview
•
Scottish DR: civil appeals and judicial review—overview
•
Scottish DR: claims and remedies—overview
•
Scottish DR: enforcement—overview
•
Scottish DR: settlement and ADR—overview

Case management

Once a civil claim has been raised and defences have been lodged, there are various procedural steps that need to be taken to progress the claim to the point of fixing a substantive hearing such as a debate or proof.

The applicable court rules will set out the standard procedure that a case will ordinarily follow and they may specify that certain requests must be made by motion. In addition, parties may wish to ...

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Dispute Resolution News

Supreme Court confirms that undisclosed car finance commissions are not unlawful in landmark ju...

The Supreme Court has ruled in three conjoined appeals concerning undisclosed commission payments in car finance deals. In its judgment today (1 August 2025), the Supreme Court rejected claims against lenders based on the tort of bribery and equity, ruling that car dealers arranging finance are not fiduciaries. The judgment provides important clarification on the legal status of dealer-arranged car finance while establishing that particularly high undisclosed commissions may still be challenged under consumer credit legislation. Christopher Adams, barrister at Henderson Chambers, and Kate Urell, barrister at Gough Square Chambers, comment on the implications of this landmark judgment.

Insolvency–fraudulent trading and dishonest assistance (Bilta and others v Tradition Financial ...

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: The Supreme Court held that liability for fraudulent trading under section 213 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) is not limited to directors or other persons exercising management or control over the company in question. Rather, liability can attach (as the natural meaning of section 213 admits) to any person who is knowingly party to the carrying on of the company's business in a fraudulent manner. The Supreme Court further restated that an isolated act of fraud in an otherwise legitimate business would not amount to fraudulent trading. The Supreme Court was also asked to determine whether claims in dishonest assistance, parasitic on the directors' breaches of their fiduciary duties, were statute barred under the Limitation Act 1980 (LA 1980). The claims were issued more than six years from the dates of those breaches. The claimants sought to postpone the accrual of the limitation period under the LA 1980, s 32, ie until the time the claimants either discovered the fraud or could with reasonable diligence have discovered it. On the assumed facts, and notwithstanding the intermediate dissolution and restoration of the companies, the claimants could not rely on LA 1980, s 32 and were consequently stature barred. Written by Sam Fenwick, partner, Suleika Horrocks, trainee solicitor, and Isabelle Burnett, solicitor apprentice at Wedlake Bell LLP.

Dispute Resolution weekly highlights—31 July 2025

This week's edition of Dispute Resolution weekly highlights includes: analysis of a number of key DR developments and key judicial decisions including the 185th, 186th and 187th Practice Direction updates to the Civil Procedure Rules and the Court of Appeal decision in Mold Investments Ltd v Holloway (evidence and interim injunction application); dates for your diary; details of our most recently published content; and other information of general interest to dispute resolution practitioners.

MoJ releases policy paper outlining AI action plan for justice system

The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has published a policy paper setting out its AI action plan for justice across England and Wales. The policy paper outlines how the MOJ will harness AI to transform the justice system by delivering swifter, fairer and more accessible public services. This plan establishes three strategic priorities: strengthening foundational AI capabilities through improved leadership, governance, ethical frameworks, and digital infrastructure; embedding AI across the justice system to enhance operational efficiency, personalise services, and support better decision-making; and investing in skills, talent, and partnerships to ensure effective and responsible AI adoption. The plan has been developed in consultation with the judiciary, legal services regulators, and other justice sector partners. It also supports wider government initiatives aimed at modernising public services while safeguarding public trust, human rights, and the rule of law.

View Dispute Resolution by content type :

News

Practice notes

Expert evidence in Scottish civil litigation—checklistThis Checklist on expert evidence in Scottish civil litigation identifies the key considerations...

4th Jul

Practice notes

Preparation for proof in Scottish civil litigation

Preparation for proof in Scottish civil litigationCivil justice reform: see our Practice Note: Civil justice reform in Scotland—virtual hearings and...

4th Jul