header-logo header-logo

“It’s for you, judge”

13 February 2015
Issue: 7640 / Categories: Case law , Judicial line , In Court
printer mail-detail

What is the objection to a solicitor using their own efficient telephone conferencing system instead of an approved telecommunications provider for a telephone hearing under the CPR?

CPR PD 23A para 6.10(1) says that the provider must be approved although the court might be persuaded for good reason to allow the requirement to be departed from. Perhaps the hearing will be short and uncontroversial or the solicitor organising the hearing has an in-house telephone conference system which is efficient. One of the principal reasons for the requirement is that the provider will record the hearing whereas the judge may be conducting it in accommodation in which recording facilities are not available.

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

Muckle LLP—Rachael Chapman

Muckle LLP—Rachael Chapman

Sports, education and charities practice welcomes senior associate

Ellisons—Carla Jones

Ellisons—Carla Jones

Partner and head of commercial litigation joins in Chelmsford

Freeths—Louise Mahon

Freeths—Louise Mahon

Firm strengthens Glasgow corporate practice with partner hire

NEWS
One in five in-house lawyers suffer ‘high’ or ‘severe’ work-related stress, according to a report by global legal body, the Association of Corporate Counsel (ACC)
The Legal Ombudsman’s (LeO’s) plea for a budget increase has been rejected by the Law Society and accepted only ‘with reluctance’ by conveyancers
Overcrowded prisons, mental health hospitals and immigration centres are failing to meet international and domestic human rights standards, the National Preventive Mechanism (NPM) has warned
Two speedier and more streamlined qualification routes have been launched for probate and conveyancing professionals
Workplace stress was a contributing factor in almost one in eight cases before the employment tribunal last year, indicating its endemic grip on the UK workplace
back-to-top-scroll