Remote Court Hearings and Procedural Participation in Civil Litigation

Abstract

Background: Differences in how institutions address remote hearings raise important questions about accountability, administrative consistency, and effective implementation.

Objective: The research compared approaches to remote hearings and explored which governance features were most closely associated with outcomes involving access to justice.

Methods: Survey data were collected from 261 relevant officials, professionals, service users, or regulated actors using measures of implementation quality, capacity, procedural clarity, transparency, and perceived effectiveness. Descriptive and adjusted regression analyses identified correlates of stronger implementation.

Results: In the remote hearings analysis, 258 cases were complete: 52% reflected consistent practice and 23% involved important procedural or capacity obstacles. Multivariable modelling showed independent positive associations for role clarity, staff capability, and access to formal guidance after accounting for organization size and jurisdiction.

Conclusion: These findings place institutional capacity at the centre of effective governance relating to remote hearings. Accordingly, justice-sector innovation should be matched by explicit safeguards and practical routes for human review.

Study design: mixed-method court-record and participant survey study.

Publication history: Originally published in print on 15 June 2021, Volume 1, Article 3. Online abstract record added on 16 September 2026. Full-text PDF will be added when the digital galley is ready.