Summary
A judge decided not to extend a two-day hearing to five days due to resource constraints, opting for a two-hour video case management hearing instead. If both parties agree on a case management order and provide unavailable dates until October 2025, the main hearing might be handled through paperwork. Typically, main hearings involve in-person questioning of witnesses under oath, but paperwork handling can occur if both parties agree or resources are limited. If one party prefers an in-person hearing, they should inform the court, and the judge will consider their request based on various factors.Full Conversation
Explain this: Employment Judge Adkin considers that it is too late to convert this two-day hearing
to a five-day hearing at this stage. There would simply not be judicial resources to
achieve this. He has decided to convert this hearing to a two hour case
management hearing by video. In the event the parties can agree a case
management order to make this matter ready for hearing and also provide a list of
dates to avoid to the end of October *, it may be possible to vacate the hearing,
and deal with this case purely as a paper exercise.
****, it means the judge can't extend the hearing from two to five days due to a lack of judicial resources. Instead, it will be a two-hour video case management hearing. If both parties agree on a case management order and provide unavailable dates until October *, the hearing might be canceled and handled via paperwork.
Do you have any specific questions about this decision or need further clarification?
Does it mean the main hearing would be handled by paperwork or just the case management hearing?
The main hearing could potentially be handled by paperwork if both parties agree on a case management order and provide a list of unavailable dates. Otherwise, the two-hour case management hearing will proceed by video.
Do you have any more questions about this process or need further details?
Is it normal for a main hearing of the case to be managed by paperwork and no in person evidence or questioning of witnesses?
Handling a main hearing primarily through paperwork, without in-person evidence or questioning of witnesses, is unusual but can occur in certain circumstances. This typically happens if both parties agree and the judge deems it appropriate for efficiency or due to resource constraints.
Is there any more specific detail about your case that you feel might affect this process?
What if one party wants a full hearing in person?
If one party insists on a full hearing in person, they should communicate their preference to the court. The judge will then consider their request based on factors such as judicial resources, the complexity of the case, and the preferences of both parties.
Do you have any further questions or need assistance with something else?
Is it fair to not have witnesses be questioned under oath etc?
Whether it's fair to not have witnesses questioned under oath depends on the context and specific circumstances of the case. Generally:
- Witnesses are typically questioned under oath during an in-person hearing for fairness.
- Handling via paperwork can be considered if both parties agree or if resources are limited.
Is there a specific detail about your case that you think might influence the judge's decision?
TRY ME!
Start a new chat