Video link

Rowland and another v Bock QBD [2002] 4 All ER 370

No defined limit or set of circumstances should be placed upon the discretion to permit video link evidence. A conclusion to the contrary would conflict with the broad and flexible purpose of the CPR. Any refusal to attend which could be characterised as an abuse or contemptuous, or which sought to obtain a collateral advantage, could be envisaged as putting an application beyond a favourable exercise of the discretion. CPR 1.1 and 1.4 envisaged considerations of cost, time, inconvenience and so forth as being relevant considerations. Moreover, save in exceptional circumstances, full access to the Court for justice in a civil matter should not be at the price of the litigant losing his liberty and facing criminal proceedings, as did the claimant in the present action; he was a Swedish businessman who risked extradition to the US if he entered the UK. In refusing to grant the claimant leave to give his evidence by video link, the Master failed to pay sufficient regard to the recognition accorded by the CPR to video link evidence, and his conclusion that it should only be ordered in cases of pressing need was too restrictive. He had also failed to pay sufficient regard to art 6 of the convention and to the need to ensure that parties were on an equal footing.