The COVID-19 pandemic didn’t just disrupt daily life—it forced a complete rethink of how justice is delivered. Within weeks, the traditional courtroom model was dismantled. In its place: remote hearings, held via video link, quickly became a necessity to keep civil litigation functioning.

For decades, the UK legal system had been cautious about adopting technology. The pandemic changed that overnight. Civil courts across England and Wales rapidly pivoted to digital platforms such as HMCTS’s Cloud Video Platform (CVP), Skype for Business, and Microsoft Teams. This wasn’t just a temporary fix—it was a historic shift with long-term implications.

Axis Solicitors has been at the forefront of helping clients navigate this new litigation landscape. The rise of remote hearings didn’t just streamline some processes; it rewired civil litigation at every level—from pre-trial conferences to full trials.

Remote hearings raised big questions about fairness, accessibility, and the role of technology in justice. Were all litigants equally able to participate? Could justice be done—and seen to be done—on a screen? And most crucially: how much of this new system should stay now that the emergency has passed?

Whether you’re a solicitor, barrister, litigant, or legal observer, understanding how remote hearings changed civil litigation forever is essential in today’s digital-first legal system.

Civil Litigation Before COVID‑19: A System Rooted in Tradition

Before March 2020, civil litigation in England and Wales was overwhelmingly conducted in person. The courtroom was the default setting for nearly all hearings—be it case management conferences, interim applications, or full trials. This physical courtroom presence was not just procedural; it was symbolic. It underscored the seriousness of legal proceedings and the transparency of the justice system.

Technology had made some inroads into civil justice, but progress was slow. The Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) did make provision for telephone hearings in limited circumstances, and e-bundles were gaining traction, particularly in commercial courts. But most courts still relied on paper bundles and face-to-face interactions.

The push for reform had been on the government’s radar for years. The HMCTS Reform Programme, launched in 2016, aimed to modernise the courts by 2023 with investments in digital systems, online services, and virtual hearings. But implementation was gradual and, at times, resisted. Many within the legal profession feared that moving away from in-person hearings would compromise fairness, reduce the gravity of legal proceedings, and exclude digitally disadvantaged individuals.

So when COVID-19 struck and physical hearings became impossible, the civil litigation system found itself at a crossroads: adapt or grind to a halt.

The Emergency Pivot: How COVID‑19 Forced the Legal System Online

In March 2020, as lockdowns took effect, the Ministry of Justice and HMCTS were faced with an urgent challenge: keep the justice system operating while courts were physically shut. Civil litigation, which often involves time-sensitive disputes and procedural deadlines, couldn’t wait indefinitely. Remote hearings became the only viable option.

The transition was rapid, and by necessity, uneven. Existing provisions under the Civil Procedure Rules—namely Part 3 and Practice Direction 23A—already allowed judges discretion to hold hearings via telephone or video. But these were rarely used for substantive matters. That changed almost overnight.

Cloud Video Platform (CVP): The Backbone of Remote Civil Hearings

HMCTS fast-tracked the rollout of its Cloud Video Platform (CVP) across civil courts in England and Wales. This became the primary tool for video hearings in civil litigation, offering secure access for judges, counsel, litigants, interpreters, and clerks. In parallel, some courts used Skype for Business or Microsoft Teams, depending on local infrastructure and case urgency.

The Judiciary’s Role in Implementation

The judiciary responded swiftly. The Coronavirus Act 2020 gave courts new powers to conduct proceedings by audio or video. Judges were issued with emergency guidance on managing remote hearings, including:

• Directions on when remote hearings were appropriate
• Protocols for ensuring public access (where possible)
• Security, recording, and data protection considerations

Lord Burnett, the Lord Chief Justice, emphasised continuity: justice must not be paused. Civil courts were instructed to proceed remotely wherever fair and possible.

Types of Civil Hearings Held Remotely

By mid-2020, a wide range of civil litigation hearings were routinely being held remotely, including:

• Case management conferences
• Directions hearings
• Costs hearings
• Online Dispute Resolution
• Summary judgment applications
• Some full trials, particularly those without live witnesses

However, trials involving cross-examination of multiple witnesses—especially vulnerable individuals—remained challenging.

Technology Meets Procedure: How Rules and Platforms Evolved Together

The rapid adoption of remote hearings exposed a critical gap: the civil procedure rules and court technology were not designed for a fully digital litigation environment. To close that gap, procedural flexibility and technological adaptation had to move in lockstep.

Civil Procedure Rule Adjustments

While no sweeping legislative overhaul was made, the courts used existing judicial discretion to apply the rules pragmatically. Judges leaned heavily on CPR Part 3—which allows for active case management—to tailor hearings to remote formats. Additional procedural updates and guidance were issued to support this:

• Practice Direction 51Y: Introduced under the Coronavirus Act 2020, it authorised audio and video hearings, with provisions for public access through recordings or live streams.
• Guidance on Remote Hearings (March 2020): Issued by the Judiciary of England and Wales, this set out expectations around preparation, e-bundles, and the conduct of remote proceedings.
• Electronic Working Systems (CE-File): Encouraged the use of the Courts Electronic Filing system in the High Court and Business and Property Courts, streamlining document submission for remote cases.

These interim measures showed how adaptable the CPR framework could be when interpreted flexibly.

Platform Challenges and Security Concerns

Despite the urgency, technological readiness varied widely across courts and legal representatives. Many faced:

• Bandwidth and connectivity issues, particularly in rural areas
• Compatibility problems between CVP and certain operating systems
• Data security concerns around platforms like Zoom, which were initially not authorised
• Limited guidance on how to handle digital evidence or screen-sharing

For litigants in person, the digital divide became a very real barrier to access to justice. Not everyone had the hardware, software, or digital literacy to engage effectively in remote litigation.

Training and Infrastructure

To support the shift, HMCTS and the Judicial College offered accelerated training for judges and court staff. Solicitors, including those at Axis Solicitors, had to quickly upskill—learning new software, rethinking litigation strategy for online hearings, and educating clients about what to expect.

Solicitors played a vital role as digital intermediaries—ensuring that clients could meaningfully participate in proceedings, particularly where English was not their first language or where disability accommodations were needed.

Fairness and Accessibility: Who Wins and Who Loses in Remote Litigation?

While remote hearings kept the wheels of civil justice turning, they also raised serious concerns about fairness, equality, and the integrity of the litigation process. The shift wasn’t universally beneficial. For some parties—especially vulnerable or self-represented litigants—the digital courtroom became a hurdle, not a help.

Access to Technology and Digital Literacy

Access to the internet, suitable devices, and a quiet, private space was uneven. Many claimants and defendants—particularly in housing, family-linked civil matters, or small claims—found themselves excluded from meaningful participation.

Common barriers included:

• Lack of a stable broadband connection
• No access to laptops or compatible devices
• Difficulty understanding video-conferencing platforms
• Limited access to legal advice or interpreter services in remote settings

For Axis Solicitors and similar firms, this meant doubling down on client support. Solicitors had to ensure that clients understood not just the legal issues, but also the digital process—from submitting e-bundles to test-running a CVP link.

Procedural Fairness and Advocacy

Remote hearings often changed the dynamics of advocacy. Judges, barristers, and solicitors had to contend with:

• Loss of visual cues and courtroom gravitas
• Technical disruptions that could interrupt argument flow
• Difficulty in reading body language or gauging credibility of witnesses
• The challenge of managing sensitive cases—such as those involving domestic abuse or mental health issues—without physical safeguards

Moreover, self-represented litigants were at a distinct disadvantage. In a physical courtroom, judges and clerks could provide some support or guidance. In remote settings, the lack of informal help and the rigid formality of video links increased isolation and procedural confusion.

Open Justice Concerns

Transparency is a core principle of UK justice. Traditionally, members of the public or press can attend civil hearings. Remote hearings complicated this:

• Public access was often limited or non-existent, especially in the early months
• Audio or video streaming arrangements were inconsistent
• Few mechanisms were in place to notify the public about remote hearings or to allow observation securely

While some courts improved over time—adding livestreams or recording access—the early stage of remote justice was less transparent than the in-person model.

Disproportionate Impact on Marginalised Groups

Numerous studies, including reports by the Legal Education Foundation and the Justice Committee, found that remote hearings disproportionately affected:

• Litigants with disabilities
• People with limited English proficiency
• Individuals with caregiving responsibilities
• Those living in shared or unstable housing

For civil justice to remain fair, remote hearings needed to be more than just technically possible—they needed to be functionally inclusive.

The Rise of Hybrid Hearings: A Compromise Model

As courts moved from emergency response to long-term planning, the conversation shifted from “remote or nothing” to a more nuanced approach: hybrid hearings. These combine in-person and remote participation, allowing flexibility while trying to retain fairness, dignity, and public accountability.

Hybrid hearings are now a core feature of the post-pandemic civil litigation system, especially in complex or high-value cases where multiple parties or expert witnesses are involved.

What Are Hybrid Hearings?

In a hybrid format, some participants attend court physically (often judges, barristers, or key witnesses), while others—typically clients, interpreters, or less central parties—join remotely. The courtroom is equipped with video-conferencing infrastructure to support seamless integration.

The format varies depending on the:

• Nature of the case
• Preferences of the judge
• Technical capacity of the court
• Needs of the parties involved

Hybrid hearings offer a degree of flexibility that was largely absent from pre-COVID litigation, enabling the legal system to respond more effectively to logistical and personal barriers.

Legal and Practical Benefits

Hybrid hearings retain many of the benefits of remote hearings while addressing their shortcomings:

• Efficiency: Travel time and costs are reduced for parties, witnesses, and experts.
• Accessibility: Vulnerable participants can contribute without attending court in person.
• Judicial control: Judges retain physical presence and authority in the courtroom, improving order and communication.
• Continuity: Cases are less likely to be adjourned due to illness or logistical difficulties.

From a solicitor’s standpoint, hybrid hearings often allow for better client engagement. Legal teams can appear in court while clients participate from a safe or convenient location, supported remotely throughout the process.

Challenges of Hybrid Hearings

Despite the advantages, hybrid hearings are not without issues:

• Technical failures can still disrupt proceedings, especially if audio/video integration is poor.
• Communication between in-person and remote parties can be strained.
• Coordination between multiple locations requires extra preparation and testing.
• Some judges and courtrooms still lack consistent access to functioning, secure CVP setups.

Additionally, hybrid formats require careful planning to avoid introducing new forms of unfairness—such as one party appearing in-person with full legal representation while another joins remotely and unsupported.

Nonetheless, hybrid hearings represent a promising middle ground in modern civil litigation. They provide courts with flexibility to tailor the hearing format to the specific needs of the case, while ensuring continued operation and broad participation.

Lasting Changes: How Remote Hearings Are Reshaping Legal Culture

The pandemic may have triggered the adoption of remote hearings, but the cultural shift it caused in civil litigation is now irreversible. What was once considered a stopgap has become embedded practice. Remote hearings are no longer a contingency—they’re a viable and often preferred option across many case types.

This transformation isn’t just procedural; it’s cultural. The way solicitors, judges, and clients think about time, space, and legal participation has evolved.

Normalising Remote and Digital Workflows

One of the most significant changes is the normalisation of digital legal workflows. Before COVID-19, full electronic bundling, online scheduling, and remote client conferencing were seen as innovations. Today, they are standard practice.

Firms like Axis Solicitors have had to modernise internal processes—adopting secure video conferencing tools, case management software, and digital documentation systems. This has increased operational efficiency and reduced overheads associated with physical files, postage, and in-person appointments.

Procedural Innovation and Judicial Attitudes

Judges have also adapted. The early reluctance to conduct remote or hybrid hearings has given way to increased comfort and confidence with technology. Many now proactively suggest remote formats for case management hearings or pre-trial reviews, citing efficiency and speed.

Moreover, procedural innovations sparked during the pandemic are being retained and even expanded. For example:

• Electronic bundles are now expected in most civil courts.
• Virtual mediation and ADR sessions are more common and often preferred by parties.
• Case triaging—where a judge assesses the best format (remote, hybrid, or in-person) early in proceedings—has become standard in some court centres.

This openness to change is a marked cultural shift from the slow, incremental reform typical of the pre-pandemic judiciary.

Client Expectations Have Changed

Clients now expect their solicitors to offer remote consultation options, explain court formats clearly, and manage digital communication efficiently. The idea of taking a day off work to travel to court for a short procedural hearing feels increasingly outdated.

At Axis Solicitors, the ability to offer flexible, remote-ready legal services has become a competitive advantage. Clients appreciate the transparency, time-saving, and cost efficiency of digital-first legal representation—especially those with work or caring responsibilities, mobility challenges, or limited transport access.

Impacts on Advocacy and Professional Development

The shift has also affected how advocacy is practised and learned. For example:

• Junior lawyers and trainees now observe court more often via video link, gaining experience that previously required physical attendance.
• Advocacy skills are being adapted for screen-based environments—where vocal clarity, document management, and on-camera presence matter more than physical courtroom demeanour.
• Solicitors must coach clients not just on legal strategy, but also on how to present themselves effectively on camera—when to speak, how to stay engaged, and how to manage technology.

Regulatory Developments and the Future of Remote Hearings

The permanence of remote hearings in civil litigation is no longer up for debate. Regulatory bodies and the courts themselves have begun to lay the groundwork for their long-term integration into the justice system. What began as an emergency solution is now part of a broader vision for digital justice in England and Wales.

HMCTS Reform Programme Rebooted

The HMCTS Reform Programme, initially launched in 2016, was turbocharged by the pandemic. Post-COVID, the focus shifted heavily towards infrastructure upgrades, platform stability, and secure video systems tailored for sustained use.

The Cloud Video Platform (CVP) is now being refined based on user feedback. This includes:

• Improving access for litigants in person
• Enhancing integration with digital case files
• Ensuring compatibility with assistive technologies

The Ministry of Justice has also committed to improving digital inclusion—funding community-based access points where litigants can participate in remote hearings securely.

Judiciary’s Long-Term View

In a 2023 report by the Civil Justice Council, the judiciary reaffirmed that remote hearings are here to stay—especially for:

• Directions hearings
• Interim applications
• Pre-trial reviews
• Non-contentious procedural matters

However, it also recommended in-person hearings for:

• Trials involving disputed factual evidence
• Cases with multiple vulnerable witnesses
• High-stakes litigation where fairness could be perceived as compromised remotely

The Council proposed a “Remote Hearings Presumption Matrix”, providing default formats for various hearing types—unless a party objects or the judge sees good reason to depart.

Ethical and Data Protection Standards

Remote hearings require rigorous adherence to data protection and confidentiality. Courts and legal practitioners must now:

• Secure client data on all platforms used
• Ensure hearings are not unlawfully recorded by participants
• Provide safeguards for remote cross-examination

These expectations are now enshrined in procedural guidance and are being reviewed regularly to keep pace with technology.

Frequently Asked Questions

What are remote hearings?

Remote hearings are legal proceedings conducted by video or telephone, without requiring physical attendance in a courtroom. They were widely adopted in the UK civil justice system due to COVID-19 and are now an established part of litigation practice.

Are remote hearings still being used now that COVID-19 restrictions are lifted?

Yes. Remote hearings continue to be used extensively across England and Wales. While courts have resumed in-person hearings for trials involving live witnesses or vulnerable parties, remote hearings remain standard for case management conferences, interim applications, and other procedural matters.

Can I request a remote hearing for my civil case?

Absolutely. Parties can request remote hearings during case management discussions. Judges will consider factors like case complexity, access to technology, and whether fairness could be maintained remotely. Solicitors at Axis Solicitors can help prepare your request and ensure your setup complies with court standards.

Are remote hearings fair?

When properly managed, remote hearings can offer a fair and efficient process. However, fairness depends on adequate technology, procedural clarity, and judicial control. Vulnerable litigants may require additional support or an in-person format to ensure access to justice.

What platform is used for remote hearings in the UK?

Most civil courts use the Cloud Video Platform (CVP). Some courts may also use Microsoft Teams or Skype for Business, depending on infrastructure. Axis Solicitors ensures all clients are prepped and tested on the correct platform before the hearing.

Do I need a solicitor for a remote hearing?

While not legally required, having a solicitor is highly advisable—especially for hearings involving legal argument, case law, or procedural complexity. A solicitor can guide you through the technology, submit your electronic bundle, and advocate effectively in the remote hearing environment.

Can the public or press attend remote hearings?

Yes, but access varies. Courts may offer a public link to attend live or provide recordings, depending on the case. The principle of open justice still applies to remote hearings, though implementation can be inconsistent.

What happens if there are technical problems during a remote hearing?

Courts are aware of technical risks. If a remote hearing is disrupted by tech failures, judges may:

• Pause the hearing
• Reschedule it
• Convert it into an in-person or hybrid hearing

Solicitors play a key role in documenting issues and requesting procedural fairness where needed.

Are remote hearings suitable for self-represented litigants?

They can be, but challenges exist—especially around using the technology and managing case documents. Axis Solicitors has helped many clients transition into remote formats, and for those representing themselves, legal clinics or court tech support services may help.

What should I do to prepare for a remote hearing?

Here’s a quick checklist:

• Test your video and microphone
• Secure a quiet, private space
• Dress professionally
• Prepare your documents digitally (e-bundles)
• Be ready to join early in case of delays
• Stay calm and focused, just as you would in court

Your solicitor will help you prepare, rehearse key points, and ensure all protocols are followed.

Need Expert Support with Remote Hearings?

Whether you’re facing a case management hearing, interim application, or full civil trial, Axis Solicitors is here to guide you through the complexities of remote hearings with clarity, confidence, and strategic precision.

Our experienced litigation team understands both the legal and technical aspects of remote proceedings. From preparing electronic bundles to advising on hearing format, we ensure you’re fully equipped to protect your rights in today’s digital courtroom.

Contact Axis Solicitors today