April 07

Participating in telephone hearings is a curious experience. It seems somehow unnatural to be talking to the Judge from the comfort of your own desk. Often there are awkward silences, when nobody seems to know who should talk first. Sometimes it is difficult to tell which disembodied voice belongs to the Judge. Even worse from time to time it transpires that the parties are talking at cross purposes about different documents.

For these reasons, I was initially sceptical about telephone hearings. I have been converted. The technology for conference calls works well. Furthermore the savings in costs are considerable. Telephone hearings save me from travelling to far flung courts and more importantly save my clients from paying for me to travel to far flung courts.

As with all new technology in the court room, telephone hearings have to be used with care. Some hearings simply have to be done in person. It is confusing to have telephone hearings in cases involving multiple parties. Furthermore, I maintain that where there is substantial disagreement between the parties, a telephone hearing is not appropriate. It is one thing to deal with case management hearings by telephone, but quite another to hear contested applications on difficult issues such as interim payments. On such points, the need to hear full argument outweighs the benefits of telephone hearings.

Telephone hearings also present unique problems for advocates, both solicitors and counsel. It is more difficult to persuade without being able to make eye-contact. It is also more difficult to gage the mood of the court. Clarity becomes more important than ever, because confusion can arise between three people on the telephone in circumstances where it would never occur face to face.

Teething problems aside, the future looks bright for telephone hearings. They look set to become the norm for hearings lasting less than 30 minutes. On the whole this will be a welcome development for both lawyers and clients alike. The simple fact is that in terms of efficiency, telephone hearings cannot be beaten.

AIDAN ELLIS