Written by Civil procedure – remote hearings – practical guidance
A journey is difficult, a witness works abroad, or a short case-management hearing seems disproportionate to a day of travel. Remote attendance may offer a solution, but it requires a direction from the court and preparation that goes beyond finding a video link.
Snapshot
Start with the function the video link will perform. A party asking to address the court from elsewhere is not in quite the same position as a witness whose oral evidence will be taken remotely. In either case, make an early, specific request, explain the practical reason and proposed arrangements, and deal with the other party fairly. Then prepare the room, documents, technology and failure plan as parts of the hearing itself.
Two powers, two functions
Remote attendance is not one undifferentiated procedure. CPR 1.4(2)(k) includes making use of technology within active case management, while the overriding objective includes full participation, the best evidence, saving expense and a fair, proportionate allocation of court resources. That provides part of the framework for deciding how a hearing should proceed; it does not turn a party’s preference into a direction.
Where oral testimony is involved, there is also a specific evidential power. CPR 32.3 says that the court may allow a witness to give evidence through a video link or by other means. The word “may” matters: this is a power for the court to exercise, not an automatic entitlement exercised by the witness or the party calling them.
Practice Direction 32, Annex 3 covers video conferencing both for taking evidence and for other parts of proceedings, including interim applications, case-management conferences and pre-trial reviews. The practical distinction is therefore between attending to participate in the hearing and attending to give evidence. A request should identify which is proposed, for whom, and for which hearing. A hybrid proposal may be more suitable than moving everybody online: one witness might join remotely while the advocates and judge remain in court.
Make an early, reasoned request
Do not wait for the hearing notice and then treat a video link as an administrative substitution. Annex 3 requires the court’s permission for any part of proceedings to be dealt with by video conferencing. Before seeking the direction, the applicant should notify the appropriate court officer and ask about equipment availability; all parties are entitled to be heard on the direction and its terms. Early notice gives the court and the other parties a genuine opportunity to deal with the proposal.
The request should identify the order sought and the reasons for it. CPR 23.3 requires an application notice unless a rule, practice direction or the court provides otherwise, and CPR 23.6 requires the notice to state what order is sought and briefly why. Annex 3 also provides that, where all parties consent, permission may be sought by letter or email, although the court may still require an oral hearing. Agreement is therefore useful, but it is not the decision itself.
A disciplined request could say:
“The claimant requests a direction that [named person] may [attend and make submissions / give oral evidence] by video link at the hearing on [date]. The reason is [concise explanation]. The proposed location, equipment and document arrangements are [details]. The other parties [consent / raise the attached points]. The claimant asks for directions on the joining arrangements and who is to coordinate them.”
Explain the concrete difficulty, its relevance to participation and the solution proposed. Distance, caring responsibilities, health, work commitments and expense may form part of the account, but unsupported labels such as “inconvenient” or “stressful” give the court little to evaluate. Supply proportionate supporting material where the reason calls for it, without disclosing private material more widely than necessary.
A witness should promptly alert the party proposing to call them so that the issue can be placed before the court. Include any interpreter or accessibility requirement in the proposal. If evidence is to be taken from another country, Annex 3 warns against assuming that the foreign state permits it and requires advance enquiries of the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office where there is doubt, with the arranging party able to report the enquiries and outcome. International travel plans are no substitute for that check.
Why convenience is not enough
Remote attendance can reduce travel and delay, but the question is not simply which format a participant prefers. Annex 3 says that the convenience of video conferencing should not dictate its use: the court must consider overall cost saving and whether video is likely to benefit the efficient, fair and economic disposal of the litigation, recognising that control over a remote witness may be more limited.
That calls for a balanced explanation rather than an assertion that technology is inherently better. A short procedural hearing with no oral evidence may present different practical considerations from a trial turning on contested testimony. The importance of seeing and hearing the witness, the documents to be used, interpretation, the reliability of the remote location and the ability of everyone to participate may all bear on the proposal.
Cost needs its own answer. Unless the court orders otherwise, Annex 3 places initial responsibility for transmission costs, including equipment and technical personnel, on the party arranging the video conference, while leaving the court to determine responsibility between the parties later. A request that saves train fares but ignores technical costs is incomplete.
Prepare the evidence and the room
A reliable connection is only one part of a fair remote hearing. Choose a quiet, private and well-lit place where you can remain for the hearing. Position the camera so your face can be seen, remove obvious interruptions and keep the court’s contact details available on a different device if possible. Have the hearing notice, case number, order, bundle and a means of making a short note ready.
Documents need particular discipline. Annex 3 asks the parties to consider in advance the documents likely to be put to a remote witness, to endeavour to agree them, and ordinarily to send a copy bundle to the remote site; it also requires arrangements for transmitting additional documents during the hearing. Agree page references and test whether the witness can open and navigate the actual bundle. A file that works on a solicitor’s desktop may be unusable on a witness’s phone.
Read the direction and notice: platform, date, time, contact details and your role.
Test the same device, browser, camera, microphone, speakers and internet connection.
Use the agreed bundle, clear page references and an agreed route for new documents.
Keep the court and technical contact details accessible and report a problem promptly.
Do not treat the remote room as invisible to the court. At the start, the judge may establish who is at the remote site, direct seating so those present are visible, explain the oath or affirmation, and determine how the evidence will be taken; during questioning, the witness must be able to see the person asking questions. Tell the court who is present and follow the judge’s directions rather than improvising assistance off camera.
Check and join a CVP hearing
The hearing information should identify the platform. Do not assume that every remote civil hearing uses the Cloud Video Platform (CVP), or that instructions for another service will work. HMCTS recommends a laptop or desktop for CVP, a current supported browser, and an early test of the camera, microphone and speakers using its published test call; unresolved technical problems must be reported to the court immediately. Complete that check early enough to solve a problem, not as the hearing begins.
On the day, close unnecessary windows and tabs, use the precise room address supplied by the court and follow the invitation rather than searching for a generic hearing room. HMCTS instructs CVP users without an alias to enter their full name and role, select video and audio, use the guest role and any supplied PIN, and wait in the digital waiting room until the court opens the conference. If the court is not ready or you have joined too early, the guidance says an “Invalid pin” message may appear and you should try closer to the time.
Small habits prevent avoidable disruption. HMCTS advises muting when not speaking because CVP focuses on the device producing the most sound, and using chat only to report technical issues. Pause before answering so that you do not speak over another participant, and say plainly if you cannot hear, cannot see a document or need a question repeated.
On the day, and if technology fails
Join in good time using the court’s instructions. Keep the notice and contact route available, and check that the name displayed identifies you appropriately. If sound or vision deteriorates, report the problem through the permitted channel rather than struggling on and hoping to reconstruct what was missed. HMCTS provides a CVP technical helpdesk and says that, if technical support cannot resolve the problem, the participant must tell the court immediately.
A remote hearing remains a court hearing. Follow the direction about who may attend and what may be shared. Annex 3 states that, save as directed by the court, no other recording of the proceedings may be made; a direction is required even for a backup recording at the remote site. Do not press record because the software offers the option.
If the connection fails, the useful record is factual: when the problem began, what you could hear or see, the steps you took and when you informed the court. Avoid continuing to answer questions through a broken connection if you cannot follow them. The immediate objective is to alert the judge so that the court can decide what should happen next.
Source anchors
These official sources explain the procedural framework and CVP joining process. The court’s direction and the hearing notice remain the starting point for an individual case.
Rules 1.1 and 1.4 cover participation, best evidence, proportionate case management and the use of technology.
Rule 32.3 gives the court power to allow a witness to give evidence by video link or other means.
The Video Conferencing Guidance addresses permission, fairness, costs, overseas evidence, documents and recording.
Rules 23.3 and 23.6 explain when an application notice is required and what it must state.
Official instructions cover the test call and supported browsers, joining steps and waiting room and technical support.
The practical point
A persuasive request connects a real participation problem to a workable, fair arrangement. Say who needs to join, what they will do, why video is sought and how documents, costs and technology will be handled. Once the direction is made, preparation should reproduce the discipline of the courtroom as closely as possible: the link is merely the route into the hearing, not the hearing itself.
Remote-hearing decision point
Get a free written assessment of the request
Legal Lens can structure a preliminary written review of the proposed attendance arrangement, the reasons for it and the practical directions needed.
Who will attend, their role, the hearing affected and the precise direction sought.
Documents, technology, other parties’ positions and unresolved practical points.
Assessment outputs
Participation, evidence, documents and practical arrangements.
The steps and contacts to organise before the hearing.
Independent Legal Lens consultancy. Legal Lens is not a regulated solicitors’ firm. A preliminary assessment is not a substitute for regulated legal advice where that is needed.