header-logo header-logo

17 June 2021
Categories: Legal News , Profession , Brexit , Covid-19 , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail

LNB News: Mrs Justice Cockerill speech on commercial dispute resolution post-Brexit and coronavirus (COVID-19)

Mrs Justice Cockerill has given a speech at the Dispute Resolution Forum 2021 highlighting the challenges faced by the judiciary and the court system following coronavirus (COVID-19) and Brexit. 

Lexis®Library update: Cockerill J explained the many problems that have developed as a result of remote hearings, and what needs to change to preserve the English courts as the jurisdiction of choice for dispute resolution in a post-Brexit paradigm.

Cockerill J stated in her speech that cross examination during remote hearings differs from in-person questioning in two ways. First, the quality and depth of the interaction suffers as a result of the loss of body language between counsel and witness. The second, is that in her view, witnesses tend to be more disinhibited when engaged in a remote cross examination. She reminded that the purpose of cross examination is not to make the witness feel more relaxed, but to get to the truth of a matter. Cockerill J elaborated her fear that being at home or within a safe territory, shielded from the critical eye of the judge and counsel can make it easier for a witness to lie, or not tell the whole truth.

Cockerill J pointed to another aspect of disinhibition caused by remote hearings by providing the example of the BBC case R (Finch) v Surrey County Council (Contempt) [2021] EWHC 170 (QB), where the BBC broadcasted ongoing remote hearings as it was possible to access them online.

As a second heading of her speech, in relation to coronavirus, Cockerill J shared her concern that fundamental aspects of learning are lost without in person interaction. In her view, pupils, trainee solicitors, clerks and staff, have lost learning opportunities without personal interaction and presence in court.

Cockerill J then reminded that complacency must be resisted if the English courts are to remain the favoured venue for dispute resolution.

She recommended that improvements be made to the procedural effectiveness of the courts and that the law be developed in a way that is responsive to modern financial transactions.

Finally, Cockerill J highlighted the Law Commission’s work to review the Arbitration Act 1996 and stressed the importance of not missing this opportunity to develop arbitration.

The full speech can be read here.

Source: Speech by Mrs Justice Cockerill: Learning our ABC’s: Thoughts about Commercial Dispute Resolution After Brexit and COVID

This content was first published by LNB News / Lexis®Library, a LexisNexis® company, on 16 June 2021 and is published with permission. Further information can be found at: www.lexisnexis.co.uk.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Firm invests in national growth with 44 appointments across five offices

NEWS
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
back-to-top-scroll