How Technology is shaping the legal world.
This article considers an important procedural point on applicable deadlines for e-filing under the Electronic Working Pilot. This is relevant for all fee earners who need to file documents electronically.
The Appellant, Microsoft, and the Respondent, JJH Enterprises Ltd, were in a dispute over whether Microsoft had filed an Appellant’s Notice within the extended time limit given by the Commercial Court. Microsoft argued it had filed the Appellant Notice in accordance with the Electronic Working Pilot Scheme set out in PD 51O before midnight on the final day. JJH argued that because it was filed after 4:30 PM on the last possible day, the Appellant was out of time.
The court determined the point on the papers.
The court concluded that Microsoft had filed the Appellant Notice within the required time frame.
The court found that the Electronic Working Pilot Scheme was not to act as a supplement to email and regular filing but to replace them. Practice directions pertaining to the latter methods had limitations, either through office hours in the case of manual filing or through PD 5B which limits filing by email to before 4:00 PM, with documents received by the court after that time treated as being received the next working day.
In contrast, PD 51O does not give any limitations for when electronic filing can take place and states that it “enables parties to issue proceedings and file documents online 24 hours a day.”
While a court could make an order limiting the time at which a notice could be filed, in the absence of such an order, electronic filing can be usually be done 24 hours a day and it was intended to work this way. The Judge found no reason for electronic filing to be bound by the same limitations as traditional or email filing.
The Respondent’s counter argument relied upon paragraph D18.2 in the Commercial Court Guide, which states that, unless otherwise specified, the latest time for compliance with an “order that an act be done” is 4:30 PM on the final day.
This argument was rejected by the court because the extension was not an “order that an act be done” but merely an extension of time for Microsoft to file an Appellant’s Notice if it chose to.
However, the court did suggest the time for filing an Appellant’s Notice may depend on a direction made by the lower court. Had it been an “order that an act be done” the court implied it may have made a different decision and limited the time frame to 4:30 PM. Furthermore, it would be open to a court to direct e-filing by a specific time.
The case highlights the growing importance of digital resources in filing and how it is changing court processes. Under traditional means of filing, Microsoft would have been out of time for filing their Appellant’s Notice, but the changing landscape has provided more flexibility, as shown by this case. However, practitioners are as ever, urged to exercise caution and have regard to the specific wording of any direction.
How can PIC help?
In addition to e-filing, developments such as the use of Electronic Bills of Costs and remote assessment hearings illustrate the pace of technological change in legal costs. In this shifting landscape it is important to have experts who can handle your costs queries efficiently, providing the most up to date advice and knowledge. PIC play a key role as experts in costs ensuring that advice provided to clients is the best and most up to date available.
Sam Ewart, Trainee Law Costs Draftsperson
23.02.2023