Take care when applying to adjourn hearings because of coronavirus!
In Blackfriars Ltd, Re [2020] EWHC 845 (Ch), the Court recently considered an application to adjourn the five-week trial commencing at the beginning of June 2020 due to Covid-19.
Please note: the information contained in our legal updates are correct as of the original date of publication
In Blackfriars Ltd, Re [2020] EWHC 845 (Ch), the Court recently considered an application to adjourn the five-week trial commencing at the beginning of June 2020 due to Covid-19.
The applicants submitted that (1) proceeding with the trial would be contrary with the Prime Minister’s instructions on 23 March 2020 to stay at home; (2) a remote trial would pose an unacceptable risk to the parties’ health and safety; (3) a remote trial was too high a technological challenge; and (4) with a remote trial, there was a potential for unfairness.
John Kimbell QC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) refused the application. He held that the Coronavirus Act 2020 (which expanded the availability of video and audio links) and the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020 (which permit a person to leave their home to attend court and/or participate in legal proceedings and allow gatherings of two or more people if it is essential for work purposes or to participate in legal proceedings) together indicate that the government expected the work of the courts to continue during the Covid-19 crisis. The Lord Chief Justice's guidance on Covid-19 and the new CPR PD 51Y also makes it clear that as many hearings as possible should be conducted remotely (by using technology) during the crisis. Further, the Senior Courts Act 1981 provides that High Court sittings could be held at any place in England and Wales. It was therefore not inconsistent with the lockdown measures to allow the trial to proceed.
In terms of safety, the trial was not due to start until early June and so a lot could change in the interim. No detailed evidence had been submitted demonstrating any difficulties that the participants might have in taking part in the trial remotely and how those could be mitigated. Furthermore, the technological challenges of a remote trial were not so great as to warrant an adjournment and the judge found that it was not essential to have everyone in the same physical space. Finally, as the matter dated back to 2011, any further delays were in neither party's interest.
The application was therefore refused and the parties were ordered to continue to prepare for the trial and to explore the technological options available to facilitate a remote trial.
This decision demonstrates that an adjournment of a hearing due to Covid-19 will not be granted automatically and certainly not without real evidence of prejudice caused by the hearing being conducted remotely. It also illustrates the relevant principles that the Court will look at when considering such an application.
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.