header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us

Trial technology (Pt 2)

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
13 April 2018 / Helen Pugh , Michael Fletcher
Issue: 7788 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Technology
printer mail-detail
nlj_7787_fletcher

In the second article of a series on trial technology Michael Fletcher & Helen Pugh consider barriers to use

As we discussed last time, the technology is now available to permit a ‘paperless trial’ and yet, particularly given the prevalence of technology in our daily lives, relatively few trials are conducted this way (see ‘Trial technology’, NLJ, 30 March & 6 April 2018). In this article, we consider why this may be the case.

Stumbling blocks

There are many reasons why lawyers may not always use e-bundles, or the full range of trial technology. First, a significant factor is cost. E-bundles and electronic presentation of evidence (EPE) can be costly to prepare and to use, and some cases may simply not merit their use. For example, the cost of an e-bundle may not be substantially different to, and could even be more than, the cost of a hard copy bundle:

  • The cost of photocopying is replaced with the cost of the bundle provider and the cost of the solicitors liaising with
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

Read All
Sponsored by
Boies Schiller Flexner—Tim Smyth

Boies Schiller Flexner—Tim Smyth

Firm promotes London international arbitration specialist to partnership

Katten Muchin Rosenman—James Davison & Victoria Procter

Katten Muchin Rosenman—James Davison & Victoria Procter

Firm bolsters restructuring practice with senior London hires

HFW—Guy Marrison

HFW—Guy Marrison

Global aviation disputes practice boosted by London partner hire

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: The insider returns
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
NLJ this week: Drawing the line on contempt
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
NLJ this week: Stop and search by the numbers
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
NLJ this week: Looking back on the prorogation that never was
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
NLJ this week: How not to plead a schedule of loss
A construction defect claim in the Court of Appeal offers a sharp lesson in pleading discipline. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains how a catastrophically drafted schedule of loss derailed otherwise viable claims. Across the areas explored in this week's column, the message is consistent: clarity, economy and proper pleading matter more than ever
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll