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

Tuesday 7 – Wednesday 8 February 2023

HM Revenue & Customs (respondent) v VolkerRail Plant Ltd & ors (appellants)

This is a second appeal. By appellant’s notice filed on 26 May 2022, the taxpayer appellant appeals, with the permission of the Upper Tribunal, their decision of 11 February 2022, whereby they allowed HMRC’s appeal against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal.

The appeals concerned claims for group relief, so as to reduce corporation tax liability, in respect of losses incurred by the U.K. branch or resident permanent establishment (“PE”) of a Dutch resident company. The taxpayers’ claims involve some EUR 45,966,000 losses. By section 403D of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 (“ICTA”), there was a restriction on the ability to surrender losses of such a PE if that loss was deductible or otherwise allowable against non-UK profits. The question raised in the proceedings was whether this restriction is compatible with the provisions of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (“TFEU”) concerning freedom of establishment. The First Tier Tribunal found that the restriction imposed by s.403D was contrary to EU law as it infringed the freedom of establishment guaranteed by the TFEU.

HMRC appeal against the same decision. HMRC concur with the Upper Tribunal’s ruling that section 403D(1)(c) of ICTA is compatible with articles 49 and 52 of TFEU because any restriction on freedom of establishment is justified in the public interest by the aim of preventing the double deduction of losses by groups with cross-border corporate structures. However, they appeal the UT Decision on the grounds that the provision is compatible with EU law for additional reasons rejected by the UT.

Tuesday 7 February 2023

Banks (appellant) v Cadwalladr (respondent)

By Appellant’s Notice filed on 15 July 2022, the Claimant (C) appeals the decision of Mrs Justice Steyn dated 13 June 2022. This was a trial of C’s claim for libel in respect of a TED Talk and a Tweet published by the Defendant (D).

The judge held that D succeeded in establishing a public interest defence; there was a change of circumstances in which the public interest defence fell away, but C failed to establish that publication of the TED Talks from the date of the change of circumstances had caused serious harm and failed to establish that the serious harm threshold was met in respect of the Tweet from first publication.

The judge handed down Judgment on 13 Judge dismissing the claim and by order of 28 June 2022 directed that C pay D’s costs of the proceedings and make a payment on account of such costs. This order is also appealed.

Tuesday 7 – Wednesday 8 February 2023

Zaman (claimant/appellant) v London Borough of Waltham Forest (defendant/respondent)
Uduezue (claimant/appellant) v London Borough of Bexley (defendant/reespondent)

Zaman appeal – By Appellants Notice filed 11 August 2022, the claimant appeals HHJ Gerald’s order dated 21 July 2022, sitting in Central London County Court, (1) striking out ground 1(5) of the grounds of appeal (as not having been raised on review) (2) dismissing A’s appeal against the Respondent local authority ‘s (R) review decision dated 12 November 2021 in respect to its offer of accommodation pursuant to s.193 of the Housing Act 1996, and (3) making consequential costs orders.

Issue concerning suitability/affordability of out of area/district/borough Private Rented Sector Offer (PRSO) of accommodation in Stoke on Trent to A & her 3 children. R’s review decision dated 12 November 2021 upheld the original decision.

A did not consider the PRSO suitable, as she was an informal carer for her mother who lived locally, and given her own health conditions and her childrens’ education.

Uduezue appeal – By Appellants Notice filed on 21 July 2022, the Appellant below (A) appeals HHJ Saggerson’s order dated 1 July 2022, sitting in Central London County Court, dismissing A’s appeal against the Respondent local authority’s (R) review decision dated 20 October 2020 which upheld R’s decision dated 13 August 2020 discharging its housing duty to A.

R initially provided A with accommodation in 28 August 2018. In 2019 following a change in A’s immigration status, R accepted it owed A a “main housing duty ” under s193(2) HA and provided her with temporary accommodation. In March 2020 A was placed on R’s housing register. On 11 August 2020 R made a Private Rented Sector Offer (PRSO) to A of a 3 bedroom home out of R’s district/borough. A refused that offer based on the health issues of herself and new born child, her need for local support network, and her eldest child’s education. R had other properties within district available at the time. Issues over suitability of accommodation offered to A and her children; duty under s208 HA for accommodation to be inside the local authority’s district so “far as reasonably practicable”; and question of statutory interpretation of definition of PRSO and “ordinary practice” of R to make such offers to applicants rather than the offer being made by the landlords.

Tuesday 7 – Wednesday 8 February 2023

Bhaur & ors (claimants/appellants) v Equity First (Nevis) Ltd & ors (defendants/respondents)

By Appellant’s Notice filed on 28 January 2022, the Claimants (Cs) appeal the Orders of Marcus-Smith J (High Court, Chancery Division) dated 28 September 2021 and 10 December 2021). By those orders, HHJ Marcus Smith rejected Cs’ claim to set aside, for mistake, a transaction (entered into in March 2007) whereby they put their entire family wealth into an offshore trust.

Factual background: C1 and C2 (husband and wife) had a considerably property business consisting of mortgaged properties worth over £5M. In 2006 concern over Inheritance Tax (“IHT”) arose and C1 responded to an advertisement which resulted in him being introduced to Aston Court Chambers (“ACC”). At the time ACC was a solicitors firm which specialised in estate planning, tax and wealth management. Mr O’Toole, (D3), was its principal. ACC engineered a tax avoidance scheme (“the Scheme”) which involved transferring all of Cs’ wealth into an offshore employment benefit trust. Cs’ entered the Scheme. Proceedings did not begin, until 2018, when Mr O’Toole, as a director of D1 (a Nevis trust company), purported to exercise the trustee’s power to bring the trust to an end and to appoint out the entire capital of the trust to charity in the form of the NSPCC. HHJ Marcus Smith found that Mr O’Toole did this in order to head off a criminal investigation into his own conduct.

Tuesday 7 – Thursday 9 February 2023

Deutsche Bank AG (claimant/respondent) v Sebastian Holding Inc (defendant/respondent) & anr

By Appellant’s Notice filed on 5 August 2022, the Second Defendant Mr Vik appeals the Contempt and Committal Orders of Moulder J dated 24 June and 15 July 2022 respectively.

Background – Sebastian Holdings Inc (SHI) is a Turks and Caicos Islands offshore SVP which until July 2015 was wholly owned and controlled by the Second Defendant, Mr Vik. In 2009 Deutsche Bank AG commenced proceedings in England for US$250m. SHI counterclaimed for US48 billion. The subject matter of the claim was (ultimately loss-making) FX, equities and other trading which SHI carried out with and through Deutsche Bank.
The Appeal arises out of Deutsche Bank AG’s application in May 2019 to commit the Second Defendant for contempt in respect of alleged breached of a Court order in 2015 on the basis that he deliberately gave false evidence in response to questions at a Part 71 Means Hearing on 11 December 2015 and that he failed to provide documents as ordered.
Mr Vik was found guilty of acts of contempt and sentenced to 20 months’ imprisonment, suspended for 6 months.

Court 63

Court 70

Court 71

Court 73

Court 74

Court 75

Court 1 Rolls Building

Court 17 Rolls Building