The final straw allowing adjournment!

As the Covid 19 pandemic became increasingly disruptive and deadly in the UK the Courts produced a Protocol Regarding Remote Hearings (dated 26th March 2020). This effectively set a default position that court cases should move to remote hearings; it’s very flexible in permitting any practicable platform to be used (who would have dreamed in advance that the judiciary, bar and solicitors would so quickly have got to grips with the range of technologies available?). The obvious background to the issue of the Protocol was the desire to prevent the build up of a huge backlog of cases to be tried while ensuring that participants of trials did not have to subject themselves to attendance at court with the obvious enhanced risk of contracting Covid 19. The default position is that trials and pre-trial hearings should proceed remotely.

It would be fair to say that the court’s enthusiasm to proceed with cases hasn’t necessarily pleased all litigants. In Re Smith Technologies Ltd (in liquidation) Abduali & others v Pearson and another the judge went as far as he possibly could to keep to the court date fixed and to facilitate the remote progress of the trial.

Judge Jones dismissed claims that lack of experience with the available platforms was an excuse for not proceeding with the trial; he expressed confidence that document handling could be managed with the assistance of lawyers and appropriate directions; he offered to sit in the evenings to avoid problems which might arise from interruptions by the respondents young children and was not persuaded that a requirement to self-isolate would disrupt a remote trial.  His enthusiasm to proceed was finally defeated when one of the parties became too ill with Covid 19 to participate. The flexibility he showed in trying to ensure that the hearing could continue was demonstrated equally in the eventual adjournment. Generally, an adjournment on grounds of ill-health would only be granted on the certificate of a doctor. In these circumstances the redoubtable judge decided that this was an impractical requirement.

Actually, isn’t it great to see such flexibility and determination? The judiciary aren’t so fuddy duddy after all!

On a more serious note if you’ve got to do any work on Civil Lit it’s good to know about the Protocol.