header-logo header-logo

17 June 2021
Categories: Legal News , Profession , Brexit , Covid-19 , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail

LNB News: Mrs Justice Cockerill speech on commercial dispute resolution post-Brexit and coronavirus (COVID-19)

Mrs Justice Cockerill has given a speech at the Dispute Resolution Forum 2021 highlighting the challenges faced by the judiciary and the court system following coronavirus (COVID-19) and Brexit. 

Lexis®Library update: Cockerill J explained the many problems that have developed as a result of remote hearings, and what needs to change to preserve the English courts as the jurisdiction of choice for dispute resolution in a post-Brexit paradigm.

Cockerill J stated in her speech that cross examination during remote hearings differs from in-person questioning in two ways. First, the quality and depth of the interaction suffers as a result of the loss of body language between counsel and witness. The second, is that in her view, witnesses tend to be more disinhibited when engaged in a remote cross examination. She reminded that the purpose of cross examination is not to make the witness feel more relaxed, but to get to the truth of a matter. Cockerill J elaborated her fear that being at home or within a safe territory, shielded from the critical eye of the judge and counsel can make it easier for a witness to lie, or not tell the whole truth.

Cockerill J pointed to another aspect of disinhibition caused by remote hearings by providing the example of the BBC case R (Finch) v Surrey County Council (Contempt) [2021] EWHC 170 (QB), where the BBC broadcasted ongoing remote hearings as it was possible to access them online.

As a second heading of her speech, in relation to coronavirus, Cockerill J shared her concern that fundamental aspects of learning are lost without in person interaction. In her view, pupils, trainee solicitors, clerks and staff, have lost learning opportunities without personal interaction and presence in court.

Cockerill J then reminded that complacency must be resisted if the English courts are to remain the favoured venue for dispute resolution.

She recommended that improvements be made to the procedural effectiveness of the courts and that the law be developed in a way that is responsive to modern financial transactions.

Finally, Cockerill J highlighted the Law Commission’s work to review the Arbitration Act 1996 and stressed the importance of not missing this opportunity to develop arbitration.

The full speech can be read here.

Source: Speech by Mrs Justice Cockerill: Learning our ABC’s: Thoughts about Commercial Dispute Resolution After Brexit and COVID

This content was first published by LNB News / Lexis®Library, a LexisNexis® company, on 16 June 2021 and is published with permission. Further information can be found at: www.lexisnexis.co.uk.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll