Legal Cost Specialists

Cutting legal costs

By on Jan 6, 2011 | 1 comment

Now that judges are being asked to satisfy themselves that any travel they undertake is necessary, and consider very carefully whether video conferencing would be an appropriate alternative in the new age of austerity, can we expect the courts to take a similarly robust approach to conferences by solicitors with counsel and experts?

Perhaps Lord Justice Brooke’s comments in Black v Pastouna & Pastouna [2005] EWCA Civ 1389 will be given appropriate weight:

“I would add that it is incumbent on those advising parties appearing before this, or any, court to take all the steps they can in accordance with CPR Rules 1.1 and 1.3 to reduce the cost of the proceedings. This includes taking advantage of such cost-saving facilities as video-conferencing whenever they are available and it is appropriate to use them.”

    1 Comment

  1. Fine in the Court of Appeal, with agreed bundles, authorities, skeletons and reading lists filed months in advance. Frequently a disaster that leads to greater costs (because of appeals etc) in the county court, where you are trying to explain a case to a judge who has no bundle, no authorities, and has read nothing at all. Of course, I am talking about telephone conferencing, but video conferencing would be no different.

    Jacques Hughes

    6th January 2011

Post a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.