320 LEGAL IMPACTS OF COVID-19 IN THE TOURISM INDUSTRY Throughout this period, the English courts have remained open, and although it has been a struggle to conduct business ‘as usual’, cases have been prioritised, triaged, and sensible decisions taken as to whether or not they could go ahead. In the author’s experience, trials were not being heard in the early weeks of the lockdown, as the courts got to grips with technology and ways of working which were new to them and to the parties. Latterly, however, ways of hearing claims have been found which would have been unthinkable only a few months ago. The Commercial Court heard a virtual trial, National Bank of Kazakhstan v The Bank of New York Mellon, in late March 2020, and the trial lasted a week, with all parties participating through video conferencing, from London, New York, Belgium and Kazakhstan. Following the success of this experiment, other courts were emboldened to use innovative solutions to find ways around the social distancing measures enacted by the UK government. Trials began to take place again; courts became more comfortable with remote hearings and with taking evidence from witnesses outside the courtroom. These experiences could have far-reaching effects. It has long been obvious that insisting on court hearings in person is disproportionately expensive, as well as being environmentally unjustifiable. A decade or more ago, the English courts had begun to move towards virtual hearings by way of telephone conferences and by taking some evidence by videolink, but the process was painfully slow. Might the innovations made during the UK lockdown lead to a leap forward in technological solutions to the obstacles perceived to stand in the way of a more economical and environmentally friendly approach? Could the judges’ acceptance that it is possible to hear and determine cases remotely but fairly mean that such methods become normalised, even after lockdown ends? There is no reason for the court system to return to hearings in person when social isolation has ended. Of course, some hearings must be determined in person, but many more need not be heard in this way. Others have noted the environmental benefits brought by international lockdown and social distancing. Eliminating unnecessary travel to and from the court could be a small, but important, benefit that could outlive the return to normal life. Notwithstanding this significant benefit to the court service, the economic consequences of lockdown will, of course, be extraordinarily grave. It is now accepted that some businesses will not survive the measures taken to contain the pandemic and that the travel industry, in particular, will contract significantly. In some ways, this has been inevitable for some time; for environmental reasons, if for no other reasons, the air transport and cruise industry has been at risk for decades. A period of painful consolidation will surely follow the cancellation of all but essential international and domestic travel and, as a consequence, those
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==