header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
13 April 2018 / Helen Pugh , Michael Fletcher
Issue: 7788 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Technology
printer mail-detail

Trial technology (Pt 2)

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
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
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll