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

2. The Measures Taken to Keep the Courts Open As well as attempting to relieve the pressure on litigators by extending time limits for them to comply with procedural and other rules, the UK government acknowledged the strain on the court service as it attempted to continue to conduct hearings remotely. The court service issued and regularly updated guidance on the hearings to be prioritised in the light of the limited court time and resources available. In the case of the civil courts, the highest priority was given to the following: - Committals; - Freezing orders; - Injunctions; - Applications in cases listed for trial in the next three months; - Applications where there is a substantial hearing in the next month; - Multitrack hearings where the parties agree the matter is urgent; and - Appeals in these instances. The next level of priority was given to: - Infant and protected party approvals; - Applications for interim payments; - Stage 3 assessment of damages; - Applications to set aside a judgment in default; - Small claims and fast track trials where the parties agree the matter is urgent; - Preliminary assessment of costs; and - Appeals in these instances. Essentially, then, in those instances where the parties agreed that the matter was urgent, and in particular where the claim was a high value one, the court would hear the matter. Otherwise, hearings were likely to be vacated and adjourned, often for many months. Having determined that the matter ought to be prioritised, the courts would triage it, in order to decide what form the hearing ought to take, whether by Skype, Zoom, telephone conferencing, or on the papers via email; or, indeed, by way of any other technological advance the parties might propose. Even if the matter was one which would ordinarily be prioritised, it might not be possible to hear it remotely, for example where there would be multiple expert witnesses giving complex evidence, requiring parties to take very frequent breaks to take instructions, or where a party was self-isolating and did not have access to the relevant technology. Cases had to be judged on an individual case by case basis, but the parties were expected to co-operate with each other in reaching agreement about whether the hearing was suitable for a remote hearing, and if so, how the hearing could be conducted most fairly.