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 5 December 2023
By Appellant’s Notice filed on 6 April 2023, the Husband appeals the order of Mostyn J dated 27 February 2023.
He heard the Husband’s appeal against the judgments of Recorder Allen KC given on 29 March 2022 and 14 April 2022 and orders made on 25 March 2022 and 14 April 2022.
Mostyn J refused the Husband permission to appeal on grounds 2- 8, and dismissed his appeal on ground 1 against the order dated 25 March 2022.
Arbuthnot J granted permission to appeal on one ground (ground 1): that the Recorder was wrong to have made a transfer of tenancy order without first determining whether the parties were legally married.
This appeal is said to raise (for the first time in this court) the basis on which the English court should or should not be prepared to make a nullity order in respect of an invalid ceremony of marriage which has taken place in another country.
Tuesday 5 – Wednesday 6 December 2023
This is an appeal against the Order of Falk J (as she then was) dated 15 July 2023.
The claim was brought by several major Swiss watch companies, each with different trade mark rights and distinct reputations.
At trial, trade mark infringement on the part of Samsung was established. The claim arose out of the commercialisation of digital “watch faces” (or “dials”) for its smartwatches.
Although a third-party “app developer” developed each of the apps, Samsung controlled the process by which the apps were made available.
Tuesday 5 December 2023
By appellant’s notice filed on 28 July 2023, Mr Hung, the First Respondent below, appeals Foxton J’s order dated 7 July 2023.
Hua She (the Claimant in the Arbitration) is a substantial judgment creditor and Mr Kei the judgment debtor. That judgment arose as a result of the order of Robin Knowles J on 16 July 2021. That order gave Hua She permission to enforce as a judgment of this court a Hong Kong arbitration award, which had been obtained against Mr Kei in the original sum of $22 million. Robin Knowles J also granted Hua She a freezing order against Mr Kei, limited to assets within England and Wales.
Wednesday 6 – Thursday 7 December 2023
By Appellant’s Notice filed on the 17 January 2023, the appellant appeals the order of Lang J dated 13 December 2022.
The Appellant sought to challenge, pursuant to section 118 of the Planning Act 2008, the Respondent’s decisions dated 31 March 2022, to make two development consent orders under section 114 PA 2008 for the construction, respectively, of the East Anglia ONE North and East Anglia TWO Offshore Wind Farms with associated onshore and offshore development.
Permission to apply for judicial review was granted on the papers by Lang J, who also heard the substantive claim. Lang J found the Respondent’s conclusions as to flooding could not be properly characterised as irrational, that the Respondent was not required by law to apply considerable importance and weight to the heritage harm in the planning balance, that the Respondent had not failed to take account of switchgear noise in reaching its decision, that the reasons given met the required standard, the conclusions were rational and clear. By an order dated 13 December 2022 the claim was dismissed on all grounds.
Wednesday 6 – Friday 8 December 2023
By Appellant’s Notice filed on 18 November 2022, the Claimants appeal, with permission, the Order of Sir Ross Cranston dated 5 August 2022.
Background – This appeal concerns whether the violation of Article 6(1) ECHR by the statutory prohibition on (anti-suit) injunctive relief in s. 13(2)(a) of the State Immunity Act 1978 (“SIA”) can be justified, by reference to customary international law or domestic public policy, as pursing “a legitimate objective by proportionate means”.
Wednesday 6 December 2023
By Appellants Notice filed on 18 May 2022, HMRC appeal the decision of the Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) dated 13 December 2021 allowing Mr Arrbab’s appeal from the decision of the First tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber) dated 17 March 2021 which concluded it had no jurisdiction to hear Mr Arrbab’s appeal.
Issue: Whether or not a refusal by HMRC to extend time to apply for a mandatory reconsideration/review of a decision by HMRC concerning tax credits gives rise to a right of appeal to the FTT or if judicial review is the only redress.
Wednesday 6 – Thursday 7 December 2023
(1) Cuthbert (appellant) v Taylor Woodrow Construction Holdings (respondent)
(2) White & ors (Executors of the estate of Thomas Albert White, Dc’d) (appellants) v Secretary of State for Health & Social Care (respondent)
Appeal 1 – By Appellants Notice filed on 19 December 2022, the Claimant (C) appeals HHJ Freedman’s order dated 30 November 2022, sitting as a High Court Judge in the King’s Bench Division.
He (1) dismissed the claim (2) gave judgment for the Defendant (D) and made consequential costs orders.
The Judge dismissed C’s claim for damages arising out of the death of Derek Cuthbert from mesothelioma. The exposure complained occurred in the period after 1955, but before 1965 ( the date when asbestos was known to cause mesothelioma).
The proposed appeal is said to raise issues of general importance to mesothelioma litigation. Central issue is whether ” in this period of time, what level of exposure to asbestos must an employed victim (or their Estate) demonstrate in order to prove that it gave rise, or should have given rise, to a foreseeable risk of injury in the mind of a well informed, large employer”. Question of the approach to foreseeability or harm.
Appeal 2 – By Appellants Notice filed on 23 December 2022, the three Claimants (C) appeal the order dated 2 December 2022 of Jeremy Hyams KC sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge in the King’s Bench Division.
The Judge (1) dismissed the claim and entered judgment for the Defendant (D) and (2) made a consequential costs order.
Claim by the executors of the estate of Thomas White for damages under the Law Reform Act (Miscellaneous Provisions ) Act 1934 in respect of Mr White’s death on 8 April 2020 due to alleged exposure to asbestos during two periods of employment at Sefton General Hospital from 1949- 1960 and 1973-1989 while using laboratory mats. Separate lesser source of exposure was said to be asbestos lagged pipework in the hospital basement.
The Judge accepted the mats emitted asbestos dust in respect of the first period of employment and were likely to materially increased risk but in not the second period; and did not accept there had been any significant exposure in the basement. The Judge found D did not owe any duty of care as it was not foreseeable at the time that the level of asbestos posed a risk.
Thursday 7 December 2023
By appellant’s notice filed on 25 July 2022, the claimant/appellant appeals the order of HHJ Jarman QC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, dated 4 July 2022, whereby he ordered that the claimant’s claims to the entire beneficial interest in Cefn Coed and to an interest in Crythan are dismissed and made consequential costs orders.
This is a dispute relating to the ownership of the farms and business carried on at Cefn Coed, Neath, and Crythan in the name of the partnership L Williams & Son following the death of the applicant’s parents.
Thursday 7 December 2023
By Appellant’s Notice filed on thje 31 July 2023, the appellants appeal the order of Mr Justice bright dated 12 July 2023.
The action before the lower court concerned an arbitration award dated 18 May 2022 which culminated in a substantial monetary award in favour of the Applicants.
The Respondent challenged the arbitration award under ss 67 and 68 of the Act. The Applicants have applied for summary dismissal of the challenge to the arbitration award. The hearing to determine the merits of those issues will commence in January 2024.
The Judge dismissed both applications, in particular dismissing the application for security for the arbitration award on the basis that there was no real evidence that the Respondent was likely to dissipate its assets.
- View the live stream from Court 4 on YouTube (external link, opens in a new tab)
- View the live stream from Court 63 on YouTube (external link, opens in a new tab)
- View the live stream from Court 67 on YouTube (external link, opens in a new tab)
- View the live stream from Court 68 on YouTube (external link, opens in a new tab)
- View the live stream from Court 69 on YouTube (external link, opens in a new tab)
- View the live stream from Court 70 on YouTube (external link, opens in a new tab)
- View the live stream from Court 71 on YouTube (external link, opens in a new tab)
- View the live stream from Court 72 on YouTube (external link, opens in a new tab)
- View the live stream from Court 73 on YouTube (external link, opens in a new tab)
- View the live stream from Court 74 on YouTube (external link, opens in a new tab)
- View the live stream from Court 75 on YouTube (external link, opens in a new tab)
Court 1 Rolls Building
- View the live stream from Court 1 – Rolls Building on YouTube (external link, opens in a new tab)
Court 17 Rolls Building
- View the live stream from Court 17 – Rolls Building on YouTube (external link, opens in a new tab)