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

Bellevue Law—Sara Mason

Bellevue Law—Sara Mason

Bellevue Law expands workplace law offering with specialist healthcare regulatory appointment

Seddons GSC—Peter Ames

Seddons GSC—Peter Ames

Seddons GSC strengthens Dispute Resolution team with partner hire

Taylor Rose—four promotions

Taylor Rose—four promotions

Taylor Rose announces partner promotions

NEWS
Pressure is mounting for a dedicated UK AI law, but deciding what it should achieve remains the central challenge
Legal professional privilege has checked the SRA’s investigative powers, exposing difficult questions about tackling suspected abusive litigation
Refusing mediation need not trigger a costs penalty, but litigators must justify their position
Group claims, disputed costs and judicial recruitment dominate the latest courtroom round-up
Landlords face fresh registration duties as procedural reforms reshape the civil courts
back-to-top-scroll