The proposed Apologies Act for Scotland: good intentions with unforeseeable consequences

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

This article considers Scotland's proposed Apologies Act in the light of experience in other Common Law jurisdictions. A number of Common Law jurisdictions have passed Apologies Acts in the past 25 years, largely motivated by concerns about a 'litigation explosion'. The idea seems to be that providing evidentiary protection to apologies will encourage their use, or at least prevent insurers and lawyers from advising against them. Charlie Irvine considers the plausibility of this hypothesis and suggests that the drafters of the Bill face an unresolvable dilemma: blanket protection for apologies may prevent credible evidence from reaching the courts, while narrowing that protection to exclude admissions of fault may stilt apologies and rob them of credibility.
LanguageEnglish
Pages84-90
Number of pages7
JournalEdinburgh Law Review
Volume17
Issue number1
Publication statusPublished - 5 Jan 2013

Fingerprint

common law
jurisdiction
act
lawyer
credibility
evidence
experience

Keywords

  • apologies
  • apologies acts
  • legislation
  • ADR
  • litigation

Cite this

@article{033fec959e5741b49d56034634c85353,
title = "The proposed Apologies Act for Scotland: good intentions with unforeseeable consequences",
abstract = "This article considers Scotland's proposed Apologies Act in the light of experience in other Common Law jurisdictions. A number of Common Law jurisdictions have passed Apologies Acts in the past 25 years, largely motivated by concerns about a 'litigation explosion'. The idea seems to be that providing evidentiary protection to apologies will encourage their use, or at least prevent insurers and lawyers from advising against them. Charlie Irvine considers the plausibility of this hypothesis and suggests that the drafters of the Bill face an unresolvable dilemma: blanket protection for apologies may prevent credible evidence from reaching the courts, while narrowing that protection to exclude admissions of fault may stilt apologies and rob them of credibility.",
keywords = "apologies , apologies acts, legislation, ADR, litigation",
author = "Charlie Irvine",
year = "2013",
month = "1",
day = "5",
language = "English",
volume = "17",
pages = "84--90",
journal = "Edinburgh Law Review",
issn = "1364-9809",
publisher = "Edinburgh University Press",
number = "1",

}

The proposed Apologies Act for Scotland : good intentions with unforeseeable consequences. / Irvine, Charlie.

In: Edinburgh Law Review, Vol. 17, No. 1, 05.01.2013, p. 84-90.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - The proposed Apologies Act for Scotland

T2 - Edinburgh Law Review

AU - Irvine, Charlie

PY - 2013/1/5

Y1 - 2013/1/5

N2 - This article considers Scotland's proposed Apologies Act in the light of experience in other Common Law jurisdictions. A number of Common Law jurisdictions have passed Apologies Acts in the past 25 years, largely motivated by concerns about a 'litigation explosion'. The idea seems to be that providing evidentiary protection to apologies will encourage their use, or at least prevent insurers and lawyers from advising against them. Charlie Irvine considers the plausibility of this hypothesis and suggests that the drafters of the Bill face an unresolvable dilemma: blanket protection for apologies may prevent credible evidence from reaching the courts, while narrowing that protection to exclude admissions of fault may stilt apologies and rob them of credibility.

AB - This article considers Scotland's proposed Apologies Act in the light of experience in other Common Law jurisdictions. A number of Common Law jurisdictions have passed Apologies Acts in the past 25 years, largely motivated by concerns about a 'litigation explosion'. The idea seems to be that providing evidentiary protection to apologies will encourage their use, or at least prevent insurers and lawyers from advising against them. Charlie Irvine considers the plausibility of this hypothesis and suggests that the drafters of the Bill face an unresolvable dilemma: blanket protection for apologies may prevent credible evidence from reaching the courts, while narrowing that protection to exclude admissions of fault may stilt apologies and rob them of credibility.

KW - apologies

KW - apologies acts

KW - legislation

KW - ADR

KW - litigation

UR - http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2267145

M3 - Article

VL - 17

SP - 84

EP - 90

JO - Edinburgh Law Review

JF - Edinburgh Law Review

SN - 1364-9809

IS - 1

ER -