The Court of Appeal (Civil Division) – Live streaming of court hearings

How and why are court cases being streamed online?

Most cases from the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) are live-streamed on the judiciary’s YouTube channel.
Live-streaming of selected cases began in 2019 to improve public access to, and understanding of, the work of the courts. We are working towards making it possible for all appropriate cases to be live streamed

View previous cases on the Court of Appeal video archive page

Wednesday 10 – Thursday 11 April 2024

Rexhaj (respondent) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (appellant)

Appeal by the SSHD against the decision of the Upper Tribunal Immigration and Asylum Chamber (UTIAC) promulgated on 24th April 2023 allowing the appeal of Rexhaj (R) from the determination of the First Tier Tribunal dismissing R’s appeal. R, a national of Albania, had sought Leave To Remain under the EUSS / Appendix EU.

The issue was whether R was an extended family member who continued to benefit from her EU sponsor in the UK when applying for leave in that category. R applied for an EU Family permit under Appendix EU as a dependent parent of her Albanian son and his Romanian wife who had ILR under the EUSS. She was granted entry for 6 months as she did not have to show dependency for the purpose of that application. While in the UK she applied under Appendix EU as a dependent parent of the sponsors. The application was refused for failure to prove dependency.

Wednesday 10 – Thursday 11 April 2024

HM Revenue and Customs (appellant) v Hotel La Tour Ltd (respondent)

By Appellant’s Notice filed on 28 September 2023, the Appellant seeks to appeal the decision, dated 24 July 2023 of the Upper Tribunal Tax and Chancery Chamber.

Background (summary):

1. The matter came before the Upper Tribunal as an appeal by HMRC against a decision of the First Tier Tribunal (FTT).
2. The FTT had allowed an appeal by the Respondent tax payer against a decision of HMRC, and corresponding assessment, which was made on the basis that the Respondent was not entitled to an input deduction in respect of certain services supplied to the Respondent because, in HMRC’s view they were directly and immediately linked to the Respondent’s exempt supplies.
3. The claimed deductions related to professional fees paid in respect of the sale of shares in a subsidiary company, the proceeds of which were to be used to develop a new hotel.
4. The FTT found that there was a direct and immediate link between the professional services and the Respondent’s downstream taxable general economic activities and the chain was not broken by the share sale – deciding that the general position that it was necessary to have a direct link between the input and output transaction was modified in fund-raising transactions, and allowed the appeal.
5. The Matter came before the UT which considered, and dismissed two grounds of appeal.

Thursday 11 April 2024

Burton (claimant/appellant) v Ministry of Justice (defendant/respondent)

By Appellant’s Notice filed on 19 May 2023, the Claimant (C) appeals paragraphs 1 and 2 of the order of HHJ Richardson dated 11 May 2023, sitting in Kingston-upon-Hull County Court, whereby she (1) dismissed the appeal (2) ordered the Appellant to pay 70% of the respondent’s costs of the appeal summarily assessed in the sum of £7000

On 22 January 2021, Mr Burton’s hire-purchase vehicle was wrongly clamped by an enforcement agent ultimately instructed by the Ministry of Justice, in breach of Schedule 12 of the Tribunal, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (“TCEA 2007”). Mr Burton applied on 9 February 2021 for an order that the Ministry of Justice release the clamp and for damages pursuant to paragraph 66 of Schedule 12 TCEA 2007. Mr Burton sought £25 per day in general damages to reflect the loss of use of the vehicle, £180 special damages for the cost of alternative transport and 88p/day for the wasted cost of insuring the vehicle.

Mr Burton’s application to release the clamp was successful. His application for damages was eventually dismissed by HHJ Richardson on appeal for two reasons. These form the two grounds of appeal before the Court of Appeal.

Court 4

Court 63

Court 67

Court 68

Court 69

Court 70

Court 71

Court 72

Court 73

Court 74

Court 75

Court 1 Rolls Building

Court 17 Rolls Building