header-logo header-logo

NLJ this week: Litigating through lockdown

23 July 2020
Issue: 7896 / Categories: Legal News , Commercial , Profession , Covid-19
printer mail-detail
Highlights from commercial litigators’ COVID diaries

Commercial litigators share their experiences of coping with the pandemic, in a special report in NLJ this week.

‘As part of what has proved to be the largest justice sector pilot ever conducted in this country, the commercial courts kept on top of their caseload when many comparable jurisdictions shut down,’ journalist Grania Langdon-Down writes.

According to the Commercial Court Users Group (CCUG), remote hearings were considered impractical in only four trials up to June (for comparison, there were 60 hearings in April), and there is ‘almost no backlog of work’. This success may lead to lasting change. Mrs Justice Cockerill told the CCUG’s June meeting that judges, court staff and court users are ‘actively’ considering whether to keep remote, or partly remote, hearings as a default, or at least ‘often used’, option for some types of hearings.

Commercial litigators say they have been kept busy, and there is likely to be a deluge of pandemic-related commercial disputes ahead. However, the surrounding legal landscape has changed―City law firms have reduced working hours, made redundancies and cut back on expenditure.

David Greene, senior partner, Edwin Coe, says non-contentious work has dropped but dispute resolution continues to be busy, with two ‘very large group claims on insurance coverage issues arising from the lockdown’ and various claims regarding contract frustration and force majeure.

Joanna Ludlam, partner, Baker McKenzie, reports suffering some ‘Zoom fatigue’ but has also enjoyed the break from commuting as well as the ‘more candid and caring interactions’ with clients. She has seen fewer new internal investigations being started but more requests for advice concerning crisis management and COVID-related regulations.

Looking ahead, litigation funding will be a key issue as businesses reduce their budgets. Susan Dunn of Harbour Litigation says she is already receiving requests from lawyers ‘planning ahead for their clients’.

Issue: 7896 / Categories: Legal News , Commercial , Profession , Covid-19
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll