header-logo header-logo

Trial technology (Pt 2)

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

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

Gilson Gray—Jeremy Davy

Gilson Gray—Jeremy Davy

Partner appointed as head of residential conveyancing for England

DR Solicitors—Paul Edels

DR Solicitors—Paul Edels

Specialist firm enhances corporate healthcare practice with partner appointment

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll