header-logo header-logo

13 February 2015
Issue: 7640 / Categories: Case law , Judicial line , In Court
printer mail-detail

“It’s for you, judge”

What is the objection to a solicitor using their own efficient telephone conferencing system instead of an approved telecommunications provider for a telephone hearing under the CPR?

CPR PD 23A para 6.10(1) says that the provider must be approved although the court might be persuaded for good reason to allow the requirement to be departed from. Perhaps the hearing will be short and uncontroversial or the solicitor organising the hearing has an in-house telephone conference system which is efficient. One of the principal reasons for the requirement is that the provider will record the hearing whereas the judge may be conducting it in accommodation in which recording facilities are not available.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Shakespeare Martineau—David Vaughan

Shakespeare Martineau—David Vaughan

Shakespeare Martineau appoints new London office head as firm continues investment in capital

Browne Jacobson—Kevin Moore

Browne Jacobson—Kevin Moore

Browne Jacobson strengthens All-Island life sciences platform with appointment of leading Galway MedTech lawyer

Clarke Willmott—Latitude Law

Clarke Willmott—Latitude Law

National law firm strengthens commercial offering with acquisition of leading immigration practice

NEWS
Mr Justice Nicklin’s decision to order costs on an indemnity basis may be a ‘significant win’ but it’s still ‘far from game, set and match’ for Associated Newspapers, a former costs judge has said
The Law Society RFC Festival of Sport returns next month, bringing together legal and financial services professionals for one of the sector’s largest annual sporting events
Legal aid deserts leave almost one in four without adequate access to justice
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has warned solicitors and law firms that using artificial intelligence does not alter their professional obligations, amid concerns over inaccurate legal material and client confidentiality
From forgotten interest claims to case-management appeals, a string of procedural developments offers useful—and occasionally cautionary—lessons for practitioners
back-to-top-scroll