The COVID-19 pandemic has brought difficulties and changes to all areas of life and court proceedings are no exception. In particular, the perceived limitations of advocacy and witness handling through a screen are causing some parties to consider whether an adjournment would be more attractive than a remote hearing. Two June 2020 cases – one in the Court of Appeal and the other in the High Court – shed some light on how the courts currently view remote hearings for witness actions and are approaching applications to adjourn in the age of Coronavirus. Our two Pupils Michael Ranson and Kavish Shah summarise in this article.
Yesterday the Court of Appeal handed down judgment in Trecarrell House Limited v Patricia Rouncefield  EWCA Civ 760, having been asked to rule on the much-debated issue of whether a landlord’s failure to provide a gas safety record (“GSR”) prior to a tenant commencing occupation is a ‘once and for all’ breach of the prescribed requirements which bars the landlord from serving a s21 notice (and thereby bringing about a no-fault eviction) indefinitely. Imogen Dodds has provided a short summary.
By way of update to yesterday’s note on Copeland v Royal Bank of Scotland plc  EWHC 1441 (QB), there has been a further decision of the High Court considering the circumstances in which it will be appropriate to lift the stay imposed by PD51Z in order to hand down judgment.