The Legal Impacts of COVID-19 in the Travel, Tourism and Hospitality Industry

4. Conclusion The UK government has attempted to strike a balance between measures designed to halt the spread of the virus, on the one hand, and measures intended to stimulate the economy, on the other. Inevitably, there have been calls from political commentators either to tighten the lockdown, in emulation of countries such as Italy and Spain, or to loosen it, in imitation of Sweden and the USA. In the first week or so of the British lockdown, there was perhaps a generalised reluctance to take the virus seriously, notwithstanding the implications of the experience of other European nations at that time. The sight of British holidaymakers drunkenly taunting Spanish police on the Costa del Sol, whilst flouting lockdown measures, disgusted the nation, as no doubt it did their Spanish hosts. Whether or not the country’s outlook was affected by the Prime Minister testing positive for the virus and being admitted to an intensive care unit, where he is said to have had only 50/50 chances of survival, we cannot know. Nevertheless, it is certain that, after that time, British people began to take the situation more seriously. Throughout this period, the English courts have remained open, and although it has been a struggle to conduct business ‘as usual’, cases have been prioritised, triaged, and sensible decisions taken as to whether or not they could go ahead. In the author’s experience, trials were not being heard in the early weeks of the lockdown, as the courts got to grips with technology and ways of working which were new to them and to the parties. Latterly, however, ways of hearing claims have been found which would have been unthinkable only a few months ago. The Commercial Court heard a virtual trial, National Bank of Kazakhstan v The Bank of New York Mellon , in late March 2020, and the trial lasted a week, with all parties participating through video conferencing, from London, New York, Belgium and Kazakhstan. Following the success of this experiment, other courts were emboldened to use innovative solutions to find ways around the social distancing measures enacted by the UK government. Trials began to take place again; courts became more comfortable with remote hearings and with taking evidence from witnesses outside the courtroom. These experiences could have far-reaching effects. It has long been obvious that insisting on court hearings in person is disproportionately expensive, as well as being environmentally unjustifiable. A decade or more ago, the English courts had begun to move towards virtual hearings by way of telephone conferences and by taking some evidence by videolink, but the process was painfully slow. Might the innovations made during the UK lockdown lead to a leap forward in technological solutions to the obstacles perceived to stand in the way of a more economical and environmentally friendly approach? Could the judges’ acceptance that it is possible to hear and determine cases remotely but fairly mean that such methods become normalised, even after lockdown ends? There is no reason for the court system to return to hearings in