News

The Civil Justice Council report on the impact of Covid-19 on civil court users has been released and can be found here.

This is my update on what PIBA has been doing in the last two weeks as lockdown has continued.

CJC consultation

The Civil Justice Council commissioned a rapid consultation on the effects of Covid-19 and the lockdown on civil justice generally, with a focus on remote hearings.  Thank you to those of you who responded to my encouragement and submitted your own survey responses to that.  We attended a (remote) meeting with the researchers and then submitted a paper on behalf of PIBA as a whole. A copy can be found here. They are due to report on Friday. We will take stock of that when they do.

PI hearing numbers

Quite separately, we are working with the Bar Council to try to assess the downturn in PI hearings, (i)  so that the true picture can be seen and pressure applied to HMCTS and others to increase the numbers, and (ii) so that the Bar Council can continue to illustrate to government the problems the profession is facing from the downturn in civil work and try to improve government financial assistance.  Several sets of chambers helped us with data from which we can conclude that, overall, hearing numbers are down by about 50% across the whole period.  Even allowing for a modest improvement in the last three weeks, hearings are still down by about 43%.  Our analysis is here.  We will deploy it as far and as forcefully as we can.  Huge thanks are due to Anna Symington and Gareth McAloon for their work on this.

Listing priorities

We have been working with the Bar Council to try to get civil listing priorities for the County Courts adjusted, so that more hearings take place.  Some success can be seen in the revised priorities from 18th May (here) but we will continue to press for further revisions so that, for example, there is a positive presumption that CCMCs etc should take place.  We are told that the senior judiciary are alive to the threat to the livelihood of the junior Bar, and they have asked for continuing feedback on listing priorities, which we will give.

Local guidance and protocols

Most DCJs are grappling with the ongoing lockdown as best they can. Some have set up local working parties for listing and remote working.  PIBA has members on those.  We have been making suggestions based on your feedback to us.  In the last few days we have had revised protocols or guidance from DCJs in Manchester, Birmingham and the West Country.  The Manchester one is comprehensive, and includes useful suggestions on remote advocacy and conducting video trials.  Those and other guidance documents are all on the PIBA website here.  Please familiarise yourself with them.

Technology

We have all had to become familiar with Teams, Skype for Business, Zoom, Starleaf and more.  HMCTS have accelerated the roll-out of their own, bespoke video hearing system CVP (Cloud Video Platform).  Mostly used in criminal courts so far, we are trying to find out details of its introduction in our sphere.  Some of you may have used it already.  We will let you know more, and provide training, when we can.

Webinars

Since I last wrote, HHJ Melissa Clarke, Jayne Adams QC, Simon Fox QC and Mr Justice Edis have all undertaken live-streamed webinars for us.  They were all excellent, and we are very grateful.  They can be watched here.  Next week’s webinars on the Ogden Tables (by Emma Corkill) are over-subscribed and you will have been emailed about the waiting lists already.  On 3rd June we will have David Heaton QC and James Rowley QC on provisional damages.  On 17th June Charles Bagot QC, Huw Davies and James Prestell will talk about remote negotiations and hearings - latest developments and practical tips.  Please join us for those.

Kind regards

Steven Snowden QC
PIBA Chair
 

The very first thing I should do is thank and pay tribute to my predecessor, Darryl Allen QC, for his leadership over the last two years, and in particular his very public leadership and investment of time over the last few weeks.  And the second is to thank Sarah Crowther QC for stepping up to be Vice Chair alongside me for the next two years.
 
Thank you too if you were able to attend our virtual AGM on Monday.  It was interesting to see that we had more people logged in this year than typically remain for the AGM on a Saturday afternoon in the lecture theatre at Catz during the Annual Weekend.  Perhaps something to consider for next year.
 
As I said at the AGM, it is sobering to note that PIBA has just turned 25 years old - formed in 1995 in response to the introduction of CFAs which, at the time, were feared to be the greatest threat to its existence that the PI Bar had ever faced.  Now, aged 25, we’re facing other threats, but I am convinced we will work through them.
 
If you were unable to attend the AGM, I am emailing to let you know what PIBA is doing, and will do.
 
Action in the short term
 
(i)  Covid-19 and the Courts lockdown  
 
Now that we have got over the immediate shock, and can see that different courts are in different ways revising their systems and trying to work out what they can still do, our priority will be to try to keep as much PI work as possible going.  
 
I fully recognise the concerns articulated by some PIBA members and some in the judiciary that HMCTS might use success in “coping” with remote hearings now to drive through a programme of closing courts, reducing judicial numbers still further, and replacing in-person hearings with remote ones when we get back to “normal”.  Judicial concerns are beautifully expressed by an anonymous family judge here:  http://www.transparencyproject.org.uk/remote-justice-a-judges-perspective/   I agree with those.  The successful undertaking of a remote commercial trial, widely publicised by those who were involved, does not for one moment mean that justice would be done in many of the sort of cases we do, if they were to be tried by video-link.
 
But there were already many aspects of our interlocutory work which were done by phone, and many more could be by phone or video.  With careful thought and pre-planning, we would expect that, at least in the interim, most applications and CCMCs could be.  Also Stage 3 assessments and the more straightforward of the Fast Track trials.  And, where the parties can agree and technology permits, some of the more complex hearings and trials.  We recognise that PIBA members will want as much of our work as possible to continue.
 
To that end, I’ve written to all the DCJs to ask that PIBA is kept updated with their local directions and announcements.  We will share that information as a resource on the PIBA website.  We have offered to them all that we will engage in trying to set up workable protocols to keep our cases going through the Courts.  Not all have yet responded, some have warmly, some lukewarm.  We will keep you updated.  
 
I am inviting PIBA members to give us feedback from next week, through our Circuit Reps, about how local Courts are working in PI cases, and suggestions for improvement.
 
Those Circuit Reps are: