Litigation during COVID-19
In these unprecedented times we have seen a significant shift in the conduct of civil litigation over a very short space of time.
Please note: the information contained in our legal updates are correct as of the original date of publication
In these unprecedented times we have seen a significant shift in the conduct of civil litigation over a very short space of time. In keeping with the developing response of the government to the COVID-19 pandemic, it has been necessary for the judiciary and practitioners to adapt swiftly to the rapidly changing situation. We consider some of the more significant developments to date.
ABI Protocol
A number of insurers and claimant firms have signed up to a protocol which is intended to represent an extension to the existing personal injury protocol. Taking effect from 24 March 2020 for a minimum of 4 weeks the protocol incorporates an agreement to freeze limitation dates, allowing claimants to navigate the current difficulties without the risk of their claim becoming statute barred. What the protocol does not do is waive any limitation defence that was available at the point the protocol came into existence and practitioners must remain mindful of that.
Court Hearings
To reflect the restrictions we all currently find ourselves under, court hearings are to be conducted remotely wherever possible through video or audio conferencing. We have already seen high-profile hearings taking place with remote court attendance and whilst a number of imminent trials have been vacated to allow the new technology to bed in, we can expect a significant majority of hearings to be conducted remotely for the foreseeable future.
There are several platforms that provide the functionality for remote hearings, to include Zoom and Skype for Business, with the preference of the courts varying. Parties will want to be proactive, liaising with opponents, the court, witnesses, experts, and where appropriate the press, to ensure there has been adequate preparation in advance of the hearing. There will be challenges, not least in cases involving litigants in person, but with a clear commitment by courts that momentum is not lost in cases it will be necessary for parties to embrace the technology – it seems increasingly likely there will remain a greater emphasis on remote hearings once the crisis has passed and with mediations, JSMs and conferences following a similar path it could well be here to stay.
Bundles
Parties should, where necessary, prepare an indexed and paginated electronic bundle of documents and authorities in advance of any remote hearing. Bundles ought to be restricted to those documents absolutely necessary to resolve the issues in dispute, allowing the parties and the court to remain focused.
Case Management
It is acknowledged that there is need for greater flexibility in case management to reflect challenges in contacting witnesses, accessing documents and maintaining expert appointments. We have therefore seen the implementation of a new Practice Direction (PD 51ZA), which came into force on 2 April 2020 and increases the period the parties are able to agree extensions of time without requiring permission of the court from 28 days to 56 days. It also specifically recognises that additional extensions might be necessary and requires the court to take into account the impact of the pandemic when considering any application.
Whilst this is certainly a welcome addition to the CPR, there remains a very clear expectation that parties will continue to progress the litigation. It cannot be assumed that applications to extend time beyond the 56-day period will be waved through without good explanation of why the timetable cannot be complied with – every attempt to comply should be made and persuasive evidence that the pandemic made compliance impossible will be expected.
Comment
The current situation brings into sharp focus the need for parties in litigation and their legal representatives to take a pragmatic and collaborative approach to work through challenges. In a time when remote communication is necessary, greater engagement is key to ensure that cases continue to move forward to a resolution.
Related expertise
You may be interested in...
Opinion
R (Willmott) v Eastbourne Council: High Court rules council can deny social housing to disabled ex-tenant over anti-social behaviour
Legal Update
Churchill v Merthyr Tydfil Council: A game changing decision for local authorities
Legal Update
Restrictive covenants – look before you leap!
Legal Update
Court of Appeal decision again demonstrates the need for reform of the Solicitors Minimum Terms
Press Release
Landmark Supreme Court decision clarifies the extent of Doctors’ Duty of Care
Legal Update
Proposed amendments to the Arbitration Act 1996
Legal Update
The downfall of Vesttoo: Fraudulent letters of credit
Legal Update
Are amendments to be expected for the Arbitration Act 1996?
Legal Update
The commercial realities of disputes and litigation
Legal Update
The Supreme Court considers limitation in environmental nuisance claims
Opinion
Vicarious liability of amateur sports teams for player on player injuries
Legal Update
Part 36 combined offers – when are they beaten?
Press Release
Browne Jacobson’s patent litigation team praised for being “dynamic” and a “major player” in IAM Patent 1000 guide
Legal Update
Employment alternative dispute resolution
Legal Update
Insolvency practitioners and trustee immunity
Guide
How to manage retail sector supply contracts and avoid disputes
Press Release
Browne Jacobson grows inheritance and trust dispute practice with partner hire
Legal Update
Subsidy control lessons to be learnt from Bulb
Legal Update
Vicarious liability – don’t overlook the importance of close connection
Opinion
Practical points from High Court ruling that Tesco has infringed Lidl’s IP rights in its famous yellow circle logo
Published Article
O Shaped mindset when working with witnesses
Opinion
Mediation – remote or in person?
Opinion
Confirmation of Acas early conciliation in the context of multiple claim forms
Published Article
ClientEarth claim may expand scope of directors' duties
Legal Update
Embargoed judgments: A professional word of caution
Press Release
Browne Jacobson’s intellectual property lawyers ranked experts in World Trademark Review guide 2023
Legal Update - Public matters newsletter
Public matters - January 2023
Opinion
Civil court litigation 2023: Reforms on the horizon
Legal Update
Settlement agreements – what are the limitations?
Settlement agreements are commonplace in an employment context and are ordinarily used to provide the parties to the agreement with certainty following the conclusion of an employment relationship.
Legal Update
Five “takeaways” in claims against mortgage brokers following Taylor v Legal & General Partnership Services Ltd [2022] EWHC 2475 (Ch)
Claims arising from interest-only mortgages have been farmed in volume. Many such claims to date have sought to drive a narrative that interest-only mortgages are an inherently toxic product and brokers were negligent simply for suggesting them. Taylor is a helpful recalibration, focussing instead on what the monies raised by the mortgage product were being used for and whether the client understood the inherent risks.
Opinion
The Future of Mediation
Legal Update
Trigger happy when directors’ duties are the target?
In a judgment handed down yesterday the Supreme Court has affirmed that a so called “creditor duty” exists for directors such that in some circumstances company directors are required to act in accordance with, or to consider the interests of creditors. Those circumstances potentially arise when a company is insolvent or where there is a “probability” of an insolvency. We explore below the “trigger” for such a test to apply and its implications.
Legal Update
The Retained EU Law
Created at the end of the Brexit transition period, Retained EU Law is a category of domestic law that consists of EU-derived legislation retained in our domestic legal framework by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. This was never intended to be a permanent arrangement as parliament promised to deal with retained EU law through the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill (the “Bill”).
Legal Update
Failure to comply with PD57AC — it can be costly!
Practice Direction 57AC (“PD57AC”) relates to witness evidence in trials and explicitly applies only to the Business and Property Courts. It applies to existing proceedings in which the witness statements for trial are signed on or after 6 April 2021.
Opinion
Sequana: Supreme clarification on the duty owed to creditors
The Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed the BTI v Sequana appeal and reviewed the existence, content and engagement of the so-called ‘creditor duty’; being the point at which the interest of creditors is said to intrude upon the decision-making of directors of companies in financial distress.
Legal Update
Common AI related technology project disputes and how to prevent them
The increased use of artificial intelligence (AI) is revolutionising the way businesses operate and is having a disruptive impact in sectors that have traditionally been slow to modernise.
Legal Update
The Civil Justice Council’s (CJC) proposed reforms to the Pre-Action Protocols (PAPs) and the possible mandatory ADR gateway. What could this mean for your case?
In November 2021, The Civil Justice Council’s published its interim report on proposed changes to the current Pre-Action Protocols, which included a mandatory Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) gateway. In this article, we look at proposed reforms and consider what this could mean for your case.
Opinion
Job applicant receives settlement due to unlawful age discrimination at interview
Janice Walsh applied for a job with Domino’s Pizza, hoping to secure a role as a Delivery Driver. However things quickly took a turn for the worse during her initial interview, with the very first question that she was asked relating to her age. Ms Walsh was ultimately informed that she had not been successful in her application.
Published Article
Sole director decisions: Another perspective
Opinion
Covid Rent Arrears: Cinema operators’ appeals dismissed
The Court of Appeal has dismissed two cases regarding rent arrears accrued during the Covid lockdowns. The cases are London Trocadero (2015) LLP v Picturehouse Cinemas Ltd and Bank of New York Mellon (International) Ltd v Cine-UK Ltd.