Information retention at e-Disclosure conference in Brussels

I demonstrated my own commitment to information retention by mislaying my notes of the sessions at IQPC’s Information Retention and E-Disclosure Management Europe Conference in Brussels last week. As with all the best document retention policies, this means that I do not have to wade through masses of information and can focus instead only on that which is important – “important” in this context meaning what I can remember. It is reasonable to assume, perhaps, that the bits I remember are those which mattered most.

Patrick Burke and Judge Peck

We kicked off with a judicial panel moderated by Patrick Burke, Senior Director and Assistant General Counsel at Guidance Software. Patrick is one of the relatively few in the US who “gets” the idea that, however sophisticated the US legal system may be in many respects, those who do business in a multinational context must take notice of jurisdictional differences. Rather too many assume that things are much the same over here if you shout and wave your arms about.

Service of UK proceedings via Twitter

The UK High Court’s recent permission to serve an injunction via Twitter may be a first, but it has respectable antecedents and the authority of the rules.

The relevant part of Rule 6.15 CPR says this:

(1) Where it appears to the court that there is a good reason to authorise service by a method or at a place not otherwise permitted by this Part, the court may make an order permitting service by an alternative method or at an alternative place.

(2) On an application under this rule, the court may order that steps already taken to bring the claim form to the attention of the defendant by an alternative method or at an alternative place is good service.

(3) An application for an order under this rule –

(a) must be supported by evidence; and

(b) may be made without notice.

Technology and constitutional protection at the Supreme Court

Readers will know that the defence of our democratic rights vies for my attention with efficient case management and the use of technology in litigation. The new Supreme Court combines both of these interests.

There is a story of a former Lord Chancellor, Lord Hailsham, who wished to speak to an MP called Neil whom he had espied in the public corridors of the House of Lords, and ran after him calling his name. Hailsham was, so the story goes, in full fig of robes and garters then worn by the Lord Chancellor. What would you do, as a tourist in that august and severe building, if an authoritative-looking man so dressed ran by shouting “Neil” in a commanding voice? They did as they were told.

Hailsham left office in 1974, so the story is not that old. Much has changed since then in the House of Lords – the hereditary peers have nearly all been expelled; the Lord Chancellor (a member of the government) surrendered the right to sit as a judge;  he is now not a Lord at all but a dull little man in a suit from the House of Commons, following a botched attempt to abolish the post in 2003; and now the separation of executive and judicial powers is complete with the removal of the national court of last resort to a Supreme Court on the other side of Parliament Square.