This is an interesting case which has an impact on both bills and budgets. There have been discussions in the past about whether witnesses could perhaps, in this technological era, attend court via video link rather than in person, thus avoiding the associated expenses of travel.
This case involved a dispute regarding whether certain Claimants were able to travel. It was held that those Claimants that were capable of travel to England should travel and attend at the trial. For those where there was a dispute regarding fitness levels and whether they could travel, it was held that they could give evidence by video link if they preferred. Finally those witnesses that simply didn’t want to travel and were medically fit to travel, they should travel to England.
This case has quashed the video link argument, it can assist with any counter arguments against any issues raised regarding the expenses associated with foreign witnesses travelling to attend court. Furthermore, foreign travel should ALWAYS be included in budgets and arguments should be raised to justify the same at any CMC, particularly reliance on the above case.
If you have any questions or queries in relation this blog please contact Sue Fox (email@example.com and 0113 3363389) or the Clarion Costs Team on 0113 2460622.