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

Fieldfisher—Will Sharp

Fieldfisher—Will Sharp

Fieldfisher boosts structured finance practice with appointment of Will Sharp

gunnercooke—Thomas Bjorn & Peter Rudd-Clarke

gunnercooke—Thomas Bjorn & Peter Rudd-Clarke

gunnercooke grows its life sciences team with new partner hires

Leonard Curtis Legal—Mark Maguire & Kane Jones

Leonard Curtis Legal—Mark Maguire & Kane Jones

Leonard Curtis Legal expands corporate team with twonew appointments

NEWS
The Attorney General, Ellie Reeves KC MP, and Solicitor General, Andy Slaughter KC MP, marked the 25th anniversary of Pro Bono Week by joining lawyers, charities, students and parliamentarians at events celebrating voluntary legal work
An indemnity costs battle with a £20m gap could reopen an important question: what weight should an approved budget carry?
The Environment Agency can prosecute offences beyond environmental legislation where proceedings support its statutory functions, the Divisional Court has confirmed
Should a conviction stand when a later ruling reveals that the law underpinning it was wrong? The answer exposes a clash between finality and justice
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
back-to-top-scroll