- Financial services
Longer Reads
In circumstances where an application was made for an adjournment of a four-day trial involving cross-examination of witnesses, the court showed extraordinary flexibility in seeking to accommodate parties’ circumstances and ensure the proper administration of justice.
6 minute read
Published 8 April 2020
In circumstances where an application was made for an adjournment of a four-day trial involving cross-examination of witnesses, the court showed extraordinary flexibility in seeking to accommodate parties’ circumstances and ensure the proper administration of justice.
Hilary Stonefrost (instructed by Collyer Bristow) for the Applicants, contended that a remote trial should be possible using video conferencing facilities.
Eleanor Temple (instructed by Lupton Fawcett) for the Respondents, argued that an adjournment of the trial should be ordered, due to a variety of difficulties arising from the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Respondents, Mr Pearson and Mr Mackie, were the directors of Smith Technologies Limited (in liquidation) (the “Company”). The case concerns the conduct of the Company’s affairs in the months immediately before the Company was wound up. The Liquidators allege that Mr Pearson and Mr Mackie were in breach of their duties to the Company and recovery is sought of sums jointly and severally from them.
The matter was listed for a four-day trial in the Insolvency and Companies Court commencing on 31 March 2020.
On 23 March 2020, in connection with the escalating COVID-19 situation, Judge Jones directed that the trial should go ahead “electronically” and invited the parties to look into this possibility and to contact the court as soon as possible.
The Respondents thereafter made written submissions to the court, seeking an adjournment of the trial for a number of cumulative reasons, including:
Following receipt of these written submissions, Judge Jones requested the parties to attend a Skype case management hearing on 26 March 2020 to consider the Respondents’ application for an adjournment. The evening before the case management hearing, the Respondents’ solicitor filed and served a witness statement explaining that Mr Mackie’s symptoms had worsened such that he (Mr Mackie) was worried that he could not prepare or participate in the trial or give proper instructions in his current state.
At the outset, Judge Jones made it clear that his decision (on the question of an adjournment) would be made on the basis that the trial must be fair and any injustice must be avoided. The judge also said that he needed to take into account the Remote Hearings Protocol (COVID-19)[1] and reference was made to the judgment of Teare J in National Bank of Kazakhstan & Others v The Bank of New York Mellon & Ors (19 March) and the pronouncements of the Lord Chief Justice.[2]
Judge Jones reiterated the default position that trials should now be conducted remotely and said that it is “…the duty of all parties to seek to co-operate to try and achieve that result.” Of relevance, he stated:
“There should be, in principle, no difficulty setting up a remote trial and any difficulties that might arise should normally be capable of being worked through in the period leading up to and/or during the hearing. It is key that the trial can be recorded, but that should be achievable and there is a new Practice Direction. There is no doubt that we are all learning how best to use this technology. However, overall, the technology is not difficult to apply and it is a feature that an advantage of it is that time is not such a relevant factor to the trial and there is greater flexibility now travel is irrelevant.”
Dealing with each of the Respondents’ points, Judge Jones decided as follows:
Subject to the question of Mr Mackie’s health, Judge Jones was of the view that the trial should go ahead, with appropriate case management directions. In particular, the judge directed that:
On Monday 30 March 2020, the Respondents’ solicitor filed a further witness statement stating that Mr Mackie’s health had, in fact, further deteriorated. In the circumstances, and in light of the ill health of Mr Mackie, which, it was said by the Respondents’ solicitor, would affect Mr Mackie’s ability to give instructions and be physically well enough to give evidence, Judge Jones adjourned the trial. It has, however, has now been relisted for a three-day hearing starting on 27 April 2020.
This case highlights innovative approaches taken by the court in furtherance of the Remote Hearings Protocol. Specifically, the judge in this case took a number of progressive steps, including a willingness to hear evidence outside normal court hours (in the evening if necessary) and/or sit during the week commencing Easter Monday.
The case also throws a spotlight on the question of adjournments due to a party’s ill-health from COVID-19 symptoms. Pre-COVID-19, such an application for an adjournment on medical grounds would have necessitated supporting evidence from the treating medical consultant, setting out details of their familiarity with the party’s medical condition, details of all recent consultations, details of the medical condition and why it prevented the party from attending trial. This, of course, is unlikely to be possible when a party is suffering from COVID-19 symptoms, due to government guidelines requiring self-isolation, and the consequent difficulty for the afflicted individual to obtain such a GP / consultants’ certificate. In this case, the evidence supporting the adjournment application was provided to the court by the Respondents’ solicitor[4]. It remains to be seen how the courts will tackle this issue of adjournments on medical grounds if more applications to adjourn are brought on the basis of a party’s ill health from COVID-19 symptoms.
A link to the judgement in Joint Liquidators of Smith Technologies Limited (in liquidation) v Pearson and Mackie (26 March 2020) can be found here.
[1] The Civil Justice in England and Wales Protocol Regarding Remote Hearings published 20 March 2020 (“the Remote Hearings Protocol”). (Note, although the version dated 20 March 2020 was relevant to this case, the Remote Hearings Protocol was itself updated again on 26 March 2020).
[2] “The courts exist to resolve disputes and, as I noted this morning, the guidance given by the Lord Chief Justice is very clear. The default position now, in all jurisdictions, must be that hearings should be conducted with one, more than one, or all participants attending remotely.”
[3] Indeed, during the course of argument, Judge Jones said that the trial could, if needed, be part heard in the evening (after children were in bed): “I would also say that we will have incredible flexibility with regard to the timing for that particular or any cross-examination… I do not suggest that I am welcoming this as an idea, but if, for example, one needs to wait until after 8 o’clock in the evening and have cross-examination between 8 and 11, I would be prepared to do it. I am not suggesting that is the best course, but we have that tremendous flexibility.”
[4] Exhibited to the witness statement of the Respondents’ solicitor was an ‘Isolation Note’ that Mr Mackie obtained from phoning the NHS 111 coronavirus service.
Related content
Longer Reads
In circumstances where an application was made for an adjournment of a four-day trial involving cross-examination of witnesses, the court showed extraordinary flexibility in seeking to accommodate parties’ circumstances and ensure the proper administration of justice.
Published 8 April 2020
In circumstances where an application was made for an adjournment of a four-day trial involving cross-examination of witnesses, the court showed extraordinary flexibility in seeking to accommodate parties’ circumstances and ensure the proper administration of justice.
Hilary Stonefrost (instructed by Collyer Bristow) for the Applicants, contended that a remote trial should be possible using video conferencing facilities.
Eleanor Temple (instructed by Lupton Fawcett) for the Respondents, argued that an adjournment of the trial should be ordered, due to a variety of difficulties arising from the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Respondents, Mr Pearson and Mr Mackie, were the directors of Smith Technologies Limited (in liquidation) (the “Company”). The case concerns the conduct of the Company’s affairs in the months immediately before the Company was wound up. The Liquidators allege that Mr Pearson and Mr Mackie were in breach of their duties to the Company and recovery is sought of sums jointly and severally from them.
The matter was listed for a four-day trial in the Insolvency and Companies Court commencing on 31 March 2020.
On 23 March 2020, in connection with the escalating COVID-19 situation, Judge Jones directed that the trial should go ahead “electronically” and invited the parties to look into this possibility and to contact the court as soon as possible.
The Respondents thereafter made written submissions to the court, seeking an adjournment of the trial for a number of cumulative reasons, including:
Following receipt of these written submissions, Judge Jones requested the parties to attend a Skype case management hearing on 26 March 2020 to consider the Respondents’ application for an adjournment. The evening before the case management hearing, the Respondents’ solicitor filed and served a witness statement explaining that Mr Mackie’s symptoms had worsened such that he (Mr Mackie) was worried that he could not prepare or participate in the trial or give proper instructions in his current state.
At the outset, Judge Jones made it clear that his decision (on the question of an adjournment) would be made on the basis that the trial must be fair and any injustice must be avoided. The judge also said that he needed to take into account the Remote Hearings Protocol (COVID-19)[1] and reference was made to the judgment of Teare J in National Bank of Kazakhstan & Others v The Bank of New York Mellon & Ors (19 March) and the pronouncements of the Lord Chief Justice.[2]
Judge Jones reiterated the default position that trials should now be conducted remotely and said that it is “…the duty of all parties to seek to co-operate to try and achieve that result.” Of relevance, he stated:
“There should be, in principle, no difficulty setting up a remote trial and any difficulties that might arise should normally be capable of being worked through in the period leading up to and/or during the hearing. It is key that the trial can be recorded, but that should be achievable and there is a new Practice Direction. There is no doubt that we are all learning how best to use this technology. However, overall, the technology is not difficult to apply and it is a feature that an advantage of it is that time is not such a relevant factor to the trial and there is greater flexibility now travel is irrelevant.”
Dealing with each of the Respondents’ points, Judge Jones decided as follows:
Subject to the question of Mr Mackie’s health, Judge Jones was of the view that the trial should go ahead, with appropriate case management directions. In particular, the judge directed that:
On Monday 30 March 2020, the Respondents’ solicitor filed a further witness statement stating that Mr Mackie’s health had, in fact, further deteriorated. In the circumstances, and in light of the ill health of Mr Mackie, which, it was said by the Respondents’ solicitor, would affect Mr Mackie’s ability to give instructions and be physically well enough to give evidence, Judge Jones adjourned the trial. It has, however, has now been relisted for a three-day hearing starting on 27 April 2020.
This case highlights innovative approaches taken by the court in furtherance of the Remote Hearings Protocol. Specifically, the judge in this case took a number of progressive steps, including a willingness to hear evidence outside normal court hours (in the evening if necessary) and/or sit during the week commencing Easter Monday.
The case also throws a spotlight on the question of adjournments due to a party’s ill-health from COVID-19 symptoms. Pre-COVID-19, such an application for an adjournment on medical grounds would have necessitated supporting evidence from the treating medical consultant, setting out details of their familiarity with the party’s medical condition, details of all recent consultations, details of the medical condition and why it prevented the party from attending trial. This, of course, is unlikely to be possible when a party is suffering from COVID-19 symptoms, due to government guidelines requiring self-isolation, and the consequent difficulty for the afflicted individual to obtain such a GP / consultants’ certificate. In this case, the evidence supporting the adjournment application was provided to the court by the Respondents’ solicitor[4]. It remains to be seen how the courts will tackle this issue of adjournments on medical grounds if more applications to adjourn are brought on the basis of a party’s ill health from COVID-19 symptoms.
A link to the judgement in Joint Liquidators of Smith Technologies Limited (in liquidation) v Pearson and Mackie (26 March 2020) can be found here.
[1] The Civil Justice in England and Wales Protocol Regarding Remote Hearings published 20 March 2020 (“the Remote Hearings Protocol”). (Note, although the version dated 20 March 2020 was relevant to this case, the Remote Hearings Protocol was itself updated again on 26 March 2020).
[2] “The courts exist to resolve disputes and, as I noted this morning, the guidance given by the Lord Chief Justice is very clear. The default position now, in all jurisdictions, must be that hearings should be conducted with one, more than one, or all participants attending remotely.”
[3] Indeed, during the course of argument, Judge Jones said that the trial could, if needed, be part heard in the evening (after children were in bed): “I would also say that we will have incredible flexibility with regard to the timing for that particular or any cross-examination… I do not suggest that I am welcoming this as an idea, but if, for example, one needs to wait until after 8 o’clock in the evening and have cross-examination between 8 and 11, I would be prepared to do it. I am not suggesting that is the best course, but we have that tremendous flexibility.”
[4] Exhibited to the witness statement of the Respondents’ solicitor was an ‘Isolation Note’ that Mr Mackie obtained from phoning the NHS 111 coronavirus service.
Need some more information? Make an enquiry below.
Subscribe
Please add your details and your areas of interest below
Article contributor
Senior Associate
Specialising in Commercial disputes, Banking & financial disputes, Commercial arbitration and Digital
Enjoy reading our articles? why not subscribe to notifications so you’ll never miss one?
Subscribe to our articlesPlease note that Collyer Bristow provides this service during office hours for general information and enquiries only and that no legal or other professional advice will be provided over the WhatsApp platform. Please also note that if you choose to use this platform your personal data is likely to be processed outside the UK and EEA, including in the US. Appropriate legal or other professional opinion should be taken before taking or omitting to take any action in respect of any specific problem. Collyer Bristow LLP accepts no liability for any loss or damage which may arise from reliance on information provided. All information will be deleted immediately upon completion of a conversation.
Close