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 8 – Friday 11 October 2024

(1) Shell Plc & anr (defendants/appellants) v Alame & others (claimants/respondents)
(2) Alame & others (“Bille Individuals”) and others (claimants/appellants) v Shell Plc & anr (defendants/respondents)

(1) By Appellant’s Notice filed on 16 January 2024 the Defendants appeal against the order made by May J dated 22 November 2023 allowing applications by the Claimant at a CMS.

There were a number of applications before the Court ,in particular an application by the Claimants to re-amend the particulars of claim (1) in the Bille claims by identifying further spills and (2) in all claims by the addition of reference to losses arising from illegal refining.

The case concerns damage allegedly cause by oil spills from assets operated by D2 in Rivers State, Nigeria. There are four sets of proceedings, all concerning oil pollution , including water and ground contamination, occurring in two distinct areas within the Niger Delta.

The Ds submit that the amendments permitted by the judge fundamentally change the scope, scale and underlying factual basis of the claims eight years after the claims were issued and up to twelve years after the relevant events occurred. The Rivers State Limitation law provides for a limitation period of five years.

(2) By Appellant’s Notice filed on 5 April 2024 The Claimants appeal against the order made by May J dated 15 March 2024 declaring that:

-the Cs’ claims are to be progressed on basis that they are global claims;
-the litigation cannot be tried through lead claims;
– instead there will be a wide-ranging trial to examine existence, extent and causes and consequences of oil contamination over three-year period in and around Bille (a region in the Niger Delta).

This is an environmental claim by 13,656 Nigerians under a GLO. They claim that their livelihoods have been devastated by oil pollution: infrastructure operated by D2 and owned by D1.

The claims, begun in 2015, concern chronic pollution, not a one-off catastrophe.

Tuesday 15 – Thursday 17 October 2024

AXA Sun Life PLC and ors (claimants) v HM Revenue & Customs & anr (respondents)

By Appellant’s Notice, filed on 21 July 2023, the Claimants appeal the Order, dated 3 July 2023, of Richards J sitting in the Chancery Division in which he made declarations in respect of preliminary issues and consequent orders.

By Appellant’s Notice filed on 24 July 2023, the Respondent, HMRC, appeal the same Order.

Issue – Corporation Tax – Extent to which the Judgments in a test case amounted to Group Litigation Orders under CPR 19.23 and the extent to which those Judgments were decisive as to certain preliminary issues in the cases involving other members of the group register.

Tuesday 15 – Wednesday 16 October 2024

Refinitiv Ltd & ors (claimants/appellants) v HM Revenue & Customs (defendant/respondent)

By an Appellant’s Notice filed on 22 December 2023, the claimant’s appeal the decision dated 20 October 2023 of the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) dismissing the claimants’ judicial review claim regarding HMRC decision to issue Diverted Profits Tax (“DPT”) notices on the claimants in the amount of £167 million.

Issue: Whether DPT notices were lawful in circumstances where the method used for arm’s length pricing differed from that agreed by HMRC in an earlier Advance Pricing Agreement

Tuesday 15 – Friday 18 October 2024

(1) Sky UK Ltd v Riverstone Managing Agency Ltd & ors
(2) Mace Ltd (claimant 536 claim) v Riverstone Managing Agency Ltd & ors

(1) By an Appellant’s Notice, filed on 21 September 2023, the Defendants appeal the Order dated 24 August 2023 of HHJ Pelling KC sitting as a High Court Judge in the Commercial Court in which he gave declaratory relief, following trial, that the Defendants were liable to indemnify Sky in respect of certain property damage.

By an Appellant’s Notice, filed on 22 September 2023, Sky appeal the same order in respect of the Judge’s judgment that liability was limited to the Period of Insurance.

(2) By an Appellant’s Notice, filed on 3 October 2023, Mace (Sky’s main contractor) appeal the same order in respect of the Judge’s judgment that Mace was only indemnified under the Policy damage prior to the date of Practical Completion.

Issue: Insurance. Whether, on its proper construction, water ingress during the period of insurance which caused property damage after the period of insurance itself constituted “damage”. Effect of retained liability (excess) provisions. Proper measure of indemnity.

Tuesday 15 – Wednesday 16 October 2024

Jones (appellant) v Wrexham County Borough Council & ors (respondents)

By Appellant’s Notice filed on the 31 January 2024, this is an appeal against the order dated 6 December 2023 of Mr Justice Eyre, sitting in the Planning Court, Cardiff.

This matter flows from the first respondent, Wrexham County Borough Council (“the Council”) considering and voting on whether they should adopt the Local Development Plan 2013-2028 (“the LDP”). The proposed plan was supported by a number of developers, and the recommendations were that it be accepted, with modification.
The council however twice rejected the LDP, notwithstanding advice that they were not able to do so on the second occasion.
Those decisions were subject to judicial review by the consortium of developers, and in the court below, Mr Justice Eyre found that the first respondent had no discretion but to adopt the LDP, granted the application and quashed the decision of the council, directing the council to reconsider the application and determine it in accordance with the court’s decision.
This appeal is now bought by Mr Marc Jones, who was a member of the council as constituted at the time and the Leader of the Plaid Cymru Group on the Council.

Tuesday 15 – Wednesday 16 October 2024

International Entertainment Holdings Ltd (claimant) v Allianz Insurance Plc (defendant)

By an Appellant’s Notice, filed on 8 March 2024, the Appellant Policyholders appeal the order, dated 29 January 2024 following Judgment dated 26 January 2024, of Jacobs J sitting in the Commercial Court in which he dismissed the their Claim, for an indemnity under the Denial of Access Endanger Life of Property (“DOA”) Clause of an Insurance Policy.

By an Appellant’s Notice, filed on 7 March 2024 the Appellant Insurers appeal the same order, in which he dismissed the Respondent’s Claim, but made certain findings that would become active if the Respondent is successful in its appeal.

Issue: Insurance – Denial of Access Endanger Life or Property Clause – Whether Covid cases amount to “incident likely to endanger human life” and whether “any policing authority” extends to central government enacting Covid restrictions.

Tuesday 15 – Wednesday 16 October 2024

Markou (respondent) v The Financial Conduct Authority (appellant)

By Appellant’s Notice, filed on 27 June 2023, the FCA appeal the decision, dated 27 April 2023, of the Upper Tribunal (Tax Chamber) in which it overturned a Decision Notice of the FCA issued on 29 January 2021.

Wednesday 16 – Thursday 17 October 2024

(1) The Secretary of State for Justice (respondent/appellant) v Sneddon (claimant/respondent)
(2) Oakley (claimant/appellant) v The Secretary of State for Justice (defendant/respondent)

(1) By Appellant’s Notice filed on 11 January 2024, the defendant below, the Secretary of State for Justice, appeals the decision of Fordham J, sitting as a Judge of the High Court, judgment being delivered on 21 December 2023.

The Judge allowed the judicial review of the Secretary of State’s decision to refuse to transfer the respondent (claimant below) to open conditions.

This appeal therefore concerns the exercise of the power of the Secretary of State for Justice to transfer prisoners to open conditions.

The questions raised by this appeal are as to the correct approach to be applied in the event that the Secretary of State decides not to accept the Parole Board’s advice. That is what occurred in this case.

(2) The Appellant challenged, by way of judicial review, the decision of the Secretary of State for Justice to reject the recommendation of the Parole Board on 25 May 2021 that he be transferred to open conditions.

HHJ Keyser KC dismissed the judicial review finding that the Secretary of State was entitled to reach the decision he did.

Wednesday 16 – Thursday 17 October 2024

Malik (claimant) v Malik and others (defendants)

(1) By Appellant’s Notice filed on 23 February 2023, the Appellant appeals the Order, dated 2 February 2023 of Bacon J sitting in the High Court, Chancery Division, Property Trusts and Probate List., lifting a stay in relation to old High Court proceedings (proceedings commenced and stayed in 1987), and entering judgment for the Claimant (Respondent) in default.

(2) By Appellant’s Notice filed on 2 October 2023, the Appellant appeals the Order, dated 2 February 2023 of Bacon J sitting in the High Court, Chancery Division, Property Trusts and Probate List, allowing the Respondent’s appeal that the test for adverse possession had been made out.

Thursday 17 October 2024

Hewston (respondent) v Ofsted (appellant)

By Appellant’s Notice filed on 8 September 2023, Ofsted appeals against the order of the Employment Appeals Tribunal dated 4 August 2023 ruling that the decision that the Claimant was not unfairly dismissed be substituted a decision that C was unfairly dismissed ,and that the matter be remitted to a different ET to determine the remedy for unfair dismissal and to redetermine the complaint of wrongful dismissal.

Thursday 17 October 2024

Majid Ali (appellant) v HSF Logistics Polska SP. ZO.O (respondent)

By Appellant’s Notice filed on 26 September 2023, the Claimant (C) appeals against the order made by Martin Spencer J dated 6 September 2023 dismissing C’s appeal from the order of Recorder Charman.

The Recorder rejected an argument that such a claim fails on the ordinary illegality grounds explained in Patel v Mirza [2016] UKSC 42.
He held that there was no illegality defence because a failure to MOT a car did not meet the third limb of the test stated in Patel because to defeat the claim on this ground would amount to disproportionate overkill.

But the Recorder went on to hold that the claim was nonetheless defeated on the grounds of causation, stating that the C’s use of the car pre-accident was unlawful, so the accident cannot have been said to have caused him any legitimate loss of use to be compensated by way of hire charges.

The issue is whether a claim for hire charges incurred after a motor accident is defeated where, at the time of the accident, the C was driving without an MOT.

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

External links

UK Judiciary YouTube Channel (external link, opens in a new tab)