On 5 May 2020, Quadrant Chambers hosted a joint webinar with Maritime London entitled "How English Shipping Law has Responded to the Covid-19 Crisis". The event was moderated by Jos Standerwick, Chief Executive of Maritime London and the panel consisted of Rob Thomas QC of Quadrant Chambers, the (then) President of the LMAA, Ian Gaunt, and Mark Lloyd, partner at Kennedys and Chairman of the Admiralty Solicitors Group. You can watch the webinar here on our YouTube channel - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCVh0YW-nXNjAgSP2q08ywSg or search Quadrant Chambers YouTube.

First, Rob considered the legal framework for remote court hearings including CPR Practice Directions 51Y and 51ZA as well as the various guidance issued by the courts. England & Wales had been quick off the mark with the first message from the Lord Chief Justice on 19 March and a remote hearing protocol shortly thereafter. He observed that the unmistakeable message is that parties are expected to embrace the use of technology in order to conduct business as usual (particular for interlocutory and short hearings).

Having done 5 remote hearings since March and May, Rob then provided some top tips. They included (1) proper and timely thought needs to be given to the contents of electronic bundles; (2) try and agree agendas and running orders to minimise interruptions; (3) consider time estimates carefully. Rob noted that it is accepted that remote hearings take longer and are more tiring – therefore advocates should give consideration to a fuller skeleton argument than perhaps they were used to. On a more practical level Rob noted it was important to consider the computer set up required as well as lighting and the background to your room (or whether you needed to download a backdrop). It was also essential to test, test, test your set up and the set up of other parties to make sure it would all run smoothly.

Ian Gaunt then considered how the LMAA had responded to the pandemic. He noted that about 80% of LMAA arbitrations were already determined on documents alone and so were unaffected by the pandemic. He noted that the LMAA Rules were very flexible which allowed the LMAA to respond easily and quickly to the issues that were arising. The LMAA has encouraged its arbitrators and the parties to see if those matters which require a hearing can proceed and not to have a general approach of kicking them into the long grass.

He noted that many of the remote hearings had been conducted using Zoom and that Zoom training was ongoing. Having been trained in Zoom he was confident that arbitrators would be able to easily adapt to the functionality of other platforms if the parties preferred a different platform to be used. Like Rob, he noted that the degree of concentration required for a remote hearing imposed an additional burden on arbitrators and counsel and that arbitrations were adapting to that by having shorter hearing days with more breaks.

In concluding he noted that the one positive of the current situation was that the legal community had had to adapt quickly to the use of technology and e-bundles and that now having familiarised themselves with it, that may continue post-pandemic which would be music to the ears of those supporting the Green Pledge.

Lastly Mark considered ADR. He noted it was working well and that mediations were now happening remotely, including one involving 55 lawyers. In terms of technology, there were passwords and encryptions, and the mediator had control of the mediation "room" and each party had a break-out "room". Mark noted that it was important there is just dispute resolution and that parties should not be opportunistic because of the current pandemic. Mark noted that there had been good engagement and co-operation from insurers, P&I clubs, solicitors, barristers, arbitrators and the courts.

Mark then considered what the future might hold. He noted that there will be an appetite for some remote hearings even post-pandemic but that how much these were embraced depended on whether they produced costs savings or increased costs (particularly if there needed to be rehearsals to check the technology was working and the potential increased time it takes to conduct a hearing remotely). The ability to work from home was a major factor for businesses to consider going forward. The pressure on court buildings and staff globally was noted and Mark predicted that the Ministry of Justice will be keen to develop more remote hearings in the future.

Jos then directed a series of audience questions to the panel which included questions about the practicalities of hearings and in particular cross examining witnesses remotely as well as adapting the sitting day to take into account any caring responsibilities that participants (whether counsel, arbitrator, solicitor, client or expert) had.

A week after the event the Commercial Bar Association (COMBAR) published its guidance on remote hearings including a specimen PTR checklist for use where a remote hearing of the trial might be required in the Commercial Court (available on its website here: https://www.combar.com/news/combar-guidance-on-remote-hearings/). The guidance will be useful not just for Commercial and Admiralty Court hearings but for arbitrations too as it raises a series of matters which should be considered carefully by all parties to any litigation. It is a welcome and useful step and again demonstrates how forward-thinking and practical English litigation has been to adapting to such fast paced change.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.