Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
Find up-to-date guidance on points of law and then easily pull up sources to support your advice with Lexis PSL
Check out our straightforward definitions of common legal terms.
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Access our unrivalled global news content, business information and analytics solutions
Insurance, risk and compliance intelligence using big data, proprietary linking and advanced analytics.
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Lex Chat is a LexisNexis current affairs podcast sharing insights on topics for the legal profession
Discuss the latest legal developments, ask questions, and share best practice with other LexisPSL subscribers
In England and Wales, the civil courts are functioning and are adapting admirably to social distancing, with judges and staff of HM Courts and Tribunals service adapting efficiently to holding remote hearings by telephone or video, supported by bespoke CPR PD 51Y. A ‘first’ was achieved last week with completion of the first Commercial Court trial in London conducted entirely by video conferencing.
The Business and Property Courts are doing their best to maintain trial dates that are already fixed, as doubtless are all the courts across the jurisdiction. However, throughout the entire system, in London and elsewhere, capacity is under pressure as judges and other key personnel find themselves self-isolating as a result of illness—their own or that of family members. It is also yet to be seen whether remote cases will run to time estimate, or whether additional delays may begin to accrue. As we move forward, it’s unlikely that every listed case suitable for remote trial can be accommodated in its intended slot, and certain that numerous cases ready (or nearly ready) for trial, but yet to be listed, will face delays—potentially stretching to months.
It is right to say that in recent years, commercial arbitration has faced its fair share of complaints about delay, cost and inadaptability—mirroring the very drawbacks of court procedures that fuelled the growing attractiveness of arbitration in the first place. Yet the arbitral community has demonstrated its capacity to move with remarkable speed when the need arises. The emergency arbitrator procedures instituted by the main institutions, enabling parties to obtain interim relief within arbitral proceedings without the need for judicial intervention, have been a success story. And over the past few weeks the arbitral process has shown itself adept at meeting the challenges of social distancing, moving procedures and hearings online.
Drawing on that experience, it should be possible in principle for the arbitral community—institutions, arbitrators themselves, and other practitioners—to step up and rescue parties to litigation who want their trial-ready disputes to be resolved promptly but whose hearings are being squeezed out of the lists by the impact of COVID-19.
We are working with litigation and arbitration colleagues to devise a protocol under which the parties to court proceedings at an advanced stage can agree to ‘convert’ their impending trial to an arbitral hearing, using the pleadings and evidence already assembled for the litigation and adopting a procedure as close as possible—or at any rate as close as the parties wish—to the trial that would have taken place. The parties would be able to retain their existing legal teams and avoid wasting the huge resources sunk into the pre-trial process.
Under the protocol, the parties would enter into an arbitration agreement with three key elements:
providing for the rapid appointment of a tribunal with availability to prepare and hold a hearing in short order
prescribing the applicable procedural rules, and
making agreed provision for the costs of the litigation to date—perhaps the most obvious choice being to empower the tribunal to deal with the costs of the preceding litigation as part of the recoverable party costs of the arbitration
In most cases there would be likely advantages in appointing an arbitral institution to administer the case, relieving some of the burden on the tribunal which will have its work cut out to prepare a hearing at breakneck pace. The protocol could provide for adaptation of the institution’s standard rules and procedures to the exigencies of the process.
It is important to be realistic about the limitations to the arbitral process and areas of divergence from litigation, which will not be to all parties’ taste. For example, limited rights of appeal (and potentially the absence of any appeal, depending on the chosen seat), and more constrained powers to compel witnesses or take other compulsory steps involving non-parties. It will also be necessary to ensure the subject-matter is properly arbitrable and to check that there are no other impediments to producing a valid and enforceable award—though these problems are unlikely to affect more than a small proportion of commercial cases. The tribunal costs may be expected to exceed the state court fees associated with the trial stage, though with the tribunal coming late to the show, the parties will not have borne the expense of tribunal fees for the earlier stages of the case. While a three-person tribunal would be the norm in a high-value case, it would be open to the parties to opt for a sole arbitrator if they wish.
There is no reason why this approach should not be extended to other jurisdictions where court processes are similarly under strain as a result of COVID-19. In some EU countries, including France and Spain, as well as in several Middle Eastern and North American jurisdictions, a range of civil court sittings have been suspended for the time being. But most of these jurisdictions benefit from a positive legal framework and an active arbitral community able to step in.
We’ll post updates as this work progresses, but meanwhile we welcome ideas and feedback from across the disputes community.
This article was first published on the website of Twenty Essex and is republished with permission. Gordon Nardell QC FCIArb and Angharad Parry are members of Twenty Essex.
Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK
* denotes a required field
0330 161 1234