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

Anthony Collins—William Hallett & Lorna Scully

Anthony Collins—William Hallett & Lorna Scully

Anthony Collins hires two talented legal directors

Switalskis—five appointments

Switalskis—five appointments

Firm expands national abuse compensation team

Mathys & Squire—nine promotions

Mathys & Squire—nine promotions

IP firm announces new partners and senior promotions across UK offices

NEWS
A High Court ruling has sent a jolt through the legal profession after a newly qualified solicitor used an internal AI tool to produce court correspondence containing a fabricated legal citation
A significant data privacy ruling has clarified what counts as valid consent under UK data protection law
Executors may be overlooking billions of pounds in estate assets hidden in forgotten investments and misplaced share certificates
Britain’s booming non-surgical cosmetics market is operating in what some critics describe as a regulatory ‘Wild West’
Family contact disputes are becoming an increasingly prominent feature of Court of Protection litigation
back-to-top-scroll