0370 270 6000

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

Forgotten your password?

Black v Pastouna, Court of Appeal, 31 October 2005

14 December 2005
The issues

Application For Permission To Appeal – Appeals By Means Of Video Conferencing

The facts

The Claimant brought a renewed application for permission to appeal in respect of her claim relating to a property in Pensby.

The decision

Permission was refused.

Lord Justice Brook commented that the Hearing could have been conducted by video conference between the Court of Appeal and Liverpool from which both Solicitor and Counsel had come that morning.

The existence of the facility with details of the arrangements to be made can be found on the Court of Appeal website at www.civilappeals.gov.uk. The practice direction to Part 32 states that guidance on the use of video conferencing and the civil courts as set out in annex 3 to that direction. The Practice Direction required the parties to consider whether video conferencing would achieve an overall cost saving and whether its use would be likely to be beneficial to the efficient, fair and economic disposal of the litigation.

It was incumbent on those advising the parties to litigation before the Court of Appeal or any Court to take all the steps they could in accordance with CPR Rules 1.1 and 1.3 to reduce the costs of those proceedings and that included taking advantage of such cost saving facilities as video conferencing.

In every case involving an Application to the Court of Appeal which was likely to last 30 minutes or less, the Court would expect the parties to apply those criteria when they considered whether the use of video conferencing would be desirable. If the Court was not satisfied that there were any features of the application which warranted an oral Hearing with the Applicant or his advisors present in Court, it might direct that any recoverable costs should be limited to the costs of conducting the Hearing by video conferencing.

Focus on...

Legal updates

Gosden and another v Halliwell Landau and another [2021] EWHC 159 (Comm)

This claim addressed the question, of when the date for assessment of damages in cases of negligence should be determined and shows that when appropriate the Courts will depart from the default position.


Legal updates

Assessing the scope of employers liability – Chell v Tarmac

These were the opening remarks of Mr Justice Martin Spencer when handing down his Judgment in the recent case of Andrew Chell v Tarmac Cement and Lime Limited [2020] EWHC 2613, the latest in a series of appeals dealing with the scope of vicarious liability.


Legal updates

Non-payment of insurance premiums during the Coronavirus pandemic

The forced closure of many businesses as a result of the Coronavirus pandemic has had a huge impact on the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Recent reports from the Office for National Statistics state that the economy was 25% smaller in April than it was in February this year.


Legal updates

Reinstatement for property damage losses – when does it apply?

The Court of Appeal has recently considered the correct test for measuring the indemnity for property damage losses and has provided useful guidance on whether an insured needs to intend to reinstate the property to its pre-loss condition.


The content on this page is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.

Mailing list sign up

Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up