Delium seamlessly integrated pre-hearing analysis with live evidence presentation, automatically updating Exhibit Lists for the first time in a public inquiry.
The Challenge
A Public Inquiry was tasked with reviewing a government decision to close a juvenile mental health facility. The Inquiry had to collect, review, and analyse evidence submitted by numerous interested parties, then present it to witnesses during multiple rounds of public hearings.
Key challenges included:
- A need for a single collaboration forum – The Inquiry team and numerous interested parties required a platform that could support their distinct needs.
- Tight timeframes and high public interest – The hearings would be live-streamed, requiring seamless and efficient evidence presentation.
- An unsuitable hearing room – There was no wired infrastructure for a traditional eTrial setup, and hearings would pause and resume over an extended period.
- A cost-conscious approach – The Inquiry wanted to minimise costs by allowing parties to use their own devices in the hearing room rather than installing dedicated monitors.
Given these requirements, an innovative and flexible solution was needed.
Delium Strategy
Following a review of alternative products, Delium was selected as the ideal solution due to its ability to seamlessly integrate evidence review, analysis and presentation in a single interface.
The Inquiry implemented Delium’s patented Common Evidence Framework, which:
- Stored all objective information in a single Common database, reducing duplication and administrative effort.
- Allowed each party to maintain their own subjective analysis in a separate, private Satellite database, ensuring flexibility.
- Enabled pre-hearing analysis to carry forward seamlessly into the hearings, ensuring that private annotations, commentary, and notes remained available.
The Commissioner also benefited from this personalised access, using a Private Satellite case to make confidential notes about witness comments and other observations.
As the Inquiry progressed, different parties assumed control of evidence publication, presenting their materials to the Commissioner, Inquiry, or their own teams. This approach empowered parties to manage their own evidence presentation without external operators.
The Benefits
- Automatic Exhibit List Updates – For the first time in a public inquiry, Exhibit Lists were updated in real time as evidence was presented.
- Seamless Public Access – Screens projected public evidence for attendees and the media, while Delium’s fully cloud-based design allowed parties to connect from the hearing room, their offices, or home.
- Significant Cost and Time Savings – The Common Evidence Framework saved over $20,000 in hosting costs, while eliminating the need to transfer data between pre-hearing and hearing environments saved days of effort.
- Flexible and User-Friendly – BYOD (Bring Your Own Device) access allowed all participants to connect without requiring dedicated courtroom infrastructure.
- Effortless Training and Adoption – With a single training session, users were fully prepared to navigate Delium across the entire Inquiry process.
Reflections from Participants
Delium met and exceeded all Inquiry requirements, providing an efficient, cloud-based solution that integrated pre-hearing work with live evidence presentation. By allowing seamless, side-by-side access to public and private evidence, participants were able to engage with the material in real time and mark up documents as needed during the hearings.
With its ability to streamline complex legal proceedings while minimising costs, Delium proved to be the ideal solution for the Inquiry’s unique challenges.
What the Legal Community Says About Delium
We were presented with 10 folders, the whole case, a little later we were looking at millions – with Delium this wasn’t a problem.
We needed a litigation support environment that would capitalise on our specialist capabilities and perform under very taxing circumstances. Delium delivered what we needed!
Using Delium significantly reduced our clients cost of running the proceedings because most of the time we could work from offices in our home cities rather than travelling to work together.