Huber & Anor v X-Yachts (GB) Ltd & Anor

In a wholly video-conducted civil hearing, the court may permit parties, witnesses and other authorised persons to attend remotely from outside England and Wales. The territorial limits in section 71(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 concern the location of the court and judge, not the geographical location of persons receiving the transmission.

Permission remains discretionary and should be granted cautiously. The court should assess fairness, the risk of misuse, enforcement of contempt powers, the sensitivity of the dispute and the practical consequences of refusing overseas attendance. Appropriate undertakings and restrictions on recording or dissemination may justify permission.

The claimants brought proceedings concerning alleged defects in a yacht supplied by the defendants. The trial was directed to proceed remotely because the parties and witnesses were located in Spain, Denmark, Ireland and England during the Covid-19 pandemic.

The judge considered whether the trial should be conducted wholly by video and whether parties, witnesses and members of the public could attend remotely from outside England and Wales. The central issue was whether Courts Act 2003, section 85A, or the territorial restriction in section 71(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, prevented such overseas attendance.

1. Remote trial. The trial was directed to be conducted wholly as video proceedings under section 85A(1) of the Courts Act 2003.
2. Territorial scope. Section 85A did not contain an implicit prohibition on remote attendance from outside England and Wales. The statutory question was one of construction, including the person with respect to whom Parliament was presumed to have legislated. The statutory purpose included keeping courts operating through technology, particularly where civil litigation had international dimensions.
3. Section 71. A video-only hearing did not mean that the court was sitting simultaneously in several jurisdictions. The judge had to be located in England and Wales, but could sit at any appropriate place there, including a home. The transmission itself constituted the hearing rather than a copy of a face-to-face hearing.
4. Discretion and safeguards. Permission for overseas attendance was discretionary and required caution because remote attendance could reduce control, facilitate misuse and make contempt sanctions harder to enforce. Fairness also favoured permitting parties to attend their own trial and avoiding unequal treatment between witnesses inside and outside the jurisdiction.
5. Order. The claimants, one representative of each defendant, Mr Skott and Ms Weldon were permitted to attend from abroad. Overseas attendance was otherwise prohibited. All remote attendees had to provide signed undertakings against recording, broadcasting and further dissemination, with legal representatives responsible for communicating and enforcing the safeguards.

The judgment records that Fraser J had directed on 23 October 2020 that the trial be conducted remotely. No appeal or further appellate history is stated.