English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Courts around the world moved rapidly to adopt remote hearings as the Covid-19 pandemic took hold. This accelerated a trend that pre-dated the pandemic, as governments and courts looked to remote hearings for their potential cost savings and the promise of greater accessibility. The debate about remote hearings has focused on using audio-visual technology, but audio-only hearings are widely used and involve the much more accessible technology, the telephone. Can an effective hearing (a key component of access to justice) be delivered by telephone? Drawing on a study of the New Zealand housing court, this article considers the benefits and problems for tenants – unrepresented and often vulnerable participants – when using audio-only hearings. It concludes that audio-hearings do offer the potential for greater access to justice as long as these hearings include adequate preparation, access to information, and support for the tenants.

A happy medium? Telephone hearings for litigants in person facing housing eviction