James Yapp weighs up the benefits & challenges of remote trials in clinical negligence cases
- In Re SC (a child) [2020] EWHC 1445 (QB), the court examined the feasibility and fairness of a trial going ahead remotely, determining that it should not proceed remotely unless an in-person hearing was ‘simply not possible’.
- An earlier decision of the Court of Appeal provided a useful ‘cut out and keep’ guide to the factors to take into account when considering remote trials.
In Re SC (a child) [2020] EWHC 1445 (QB), [2020] All ER (D) 52 (Jun), Mr Justice Johnson decided that a remote trial in a substantial clinical negligence claim could be fair. However, a remote hearing would be undesirable unless it was not possible to proceed in person. The trial would go ahead in person.
Background
The claim arose from an alleged four- or five-day delay in the diagnosis of meningitis. The claimant, then 15 months old, developed hemiplegic cerebral palsy.
The trial was listed for the week beginning 8 June 2020 following a previous adjournment. The defendant applied to adjourn
