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 16 April 2024

Drax Smart Generation Holdco Ltd (respondent) v Scottish Power Retail Holdings Ltd (claimant)

The dispute concerns claims made under a share purchase agreement which the Defendant, Scottish Power, says were not properly notified within the time limits required and sought summary dismissal of the claims.

The Judge dismissed a number of the claims known as the Warranty Claims and the Other Breach of Contract Claims. The Claimant appeals the dismissal.

The Judge permitted the Claimant to maintain its claim under a contractual indemnity provision; the Indemnity Claim. The Defendant appeals this.

Tuesday 16 – Wednesday 17 April 2024

Options UK Personal Pensions LLP (claimant/appellant) v Financial Ombudsman Service Ltd (defendant/respondent)

The appellant sought to judicially review the Respondent’s decision of 28 March 2022, which upheld a complaint against it. The complaint was made against the Appellant by the 1st interested party, for the Appellant having accepted an application for a Self-Invested Personal Pension (SIPP), and an investment in Store First, from an unregulated business called CL&P). The interested party complained that the Appellant did not carry out sufficient due diligence on CL&P before accepting its business.

Permission to apply for judicial review was refused on the papers and following an oral renewal hearing, the judge finding the claim was not arguable.

Tuesday 16 April 2024

Al-Azad (appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (respondent)

Appeal against the decision of the Upper Tribunal Immigration & Asylum Chamber promulgated on 19 June 2023.

The appellant is a national of Bangladesh who entered the UK on 16 February 2009 as a student and subsequently extended his leave as a student and then switched to a Tier 1 Highly Skilled visa. On 17 January 2013 he applied for further Leave to Remain as a Tier 1 Entrepreneur; he later varied this application on 21 December 2018 on the basis of his claim to have accrued 10 years lawful residence. On 28 May 2021 the respondent refused the application, and it is this decision which was appealed in the First Tier Tribunal. The Upper Tribunal upheld the decision of the First Tier Tribunal.

Tuesday 16 – Wednesday 17 April 2024

Northamber plc (claimant) v Genee World Ltd (1st defendant) & ors

By Appellants Notices filed on 22 March 2023 the Claimant and 2nd Defendant separately appeal the Order of HHJ Rawlings dated 3 March 2023, sitting as a High Court Judge in the Business and Property Courts in Birmingham, Business List.

Background – The Claimant is a distributor of audio/visual and IT technology equipment.

The First Defendant was a manufacturer of audio/visual equipment. The Second Defendant was, at all material times until the liquidation, the sole director and owner of the First Defendant.

The case relates to breaches of a contract, an Exclusivity Agreement dated 1 July 2017 which required that all orders for the supply of the First Defendant’s products in the UK (save for 4 excluded entities) were to be through the Claimant.

Wednesday 17 April 2024

Bellini v Brit UW Limited (The Corporate Capital Provider Of Lloyd’s Syndicate 2987 For The 2019 Year of Account)

Appeal against the Order of Clare Ambrose (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) (Order sealed 16/8/23) that ordered that on the proper construction of clause 8.2.6 of the Policy there can be no cover in the absence of damage (as defined in the Policy), and such damage is physical loss, physical damage and/or physical destruction and the claim was dismissed.

The Claimant is a business that runs a restaurant in Sunderland called Bellini. It makes a claim against its insurer, the Defendant, under a policy of insurance (“the Policy”) seeking to recover for loss incurred by reason of business interruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Claimant’s case is that these losses are covered while the Defendant denies liability because it says that such coverage under the relevant term of the Policy (clause 8.2.6) is dependent upon physical damage to the premises or property, which has not occurred.

Wednesday 17 – Thursday 18 April 2024

Kwik-Fit Group Ltd & ors (appellants) v HM Revenue and Customs (respondent)

By Appellant’s Notice filed on 3 March 2023, the Appellants appeal the Order of the Upper Tribunal (Tax Chamber) dated 25 November 2022.

Background (summary) – The Appellants are all part of the Kwik-Fit group of companies. In 2013, the Kwik-Fit Group undertook a reorganisation pursuant to which a number of new and existing intra-group receivables were assigned to Speedy 1 Limited.

HMRC took the view that the restructuring engaged the unallowable purpose regime and disallowed interest debit in relation to new loans and loans that had been assigned to Speedy and disallowed debits in relation to the increased interest payments on existing loans from Speedy to group companies.

The First Tier Tribunal (FTT) substantially agreed with HMRC except in the case of pre-existing loans assigned to Speedy where they said only the amount relating to the increased interest rate should be disallowed.

Both the Appellants and HMRC appealed to the Upper Tribunal which upheld the FTT decision.

Wednesday 17 April 2024

Re: D (children)

By Appellant’s Notice filed on the 28 March 2024, this is an application for permission to appeal, with appeal to follow if permission is granted, against the decision of HHJ Jacklin KC sitting in the Family Court dated 26 March 2024.

This is Mother’s application against removal of her 4 children into foster care. All children currently reside with other family members.

Wednesday 17 April 2024

Al-Hezaimi & ors (defendants/appellants) v TAQA Investment Company & ors (claimants/respondents)

By Appellant’s Notice filed on 25 October 2022 the First and Third Defendants appeal paragraphs the Order of Joanne Wicks KC (sitting as a High Court Judge) dated 4 October 2022 by which she dismissed the First Defendant’s counterclaim and ordered costs.

Background – The First Claimant and the First Defendant, are businessmen and former business partners. Their relationship broke down and the parties have since been involved in various proceedings both in England and Saudi Arabia. By a Settlement Deed dated 19 June 2019 (“the Settlement Deed”), the parties settled certain claims and proceedings between them. The questions arising in these proceedings are (1) as to the extent of the claims settled by the Settlement Deed and (2) whether it should be rectified.

Thursday 18 April 2024

Rhine Shipping DMCC (claimant/appellant) v VITOL SA (defendant/respondent)

The dispute arises out of a voyage charter (“the charter”) of the crude tanker Dijilah (“the Vessel”) between the Claimant (“Rhine”), as disponent owner, and the Defendant (“Vitol”) as voyage charterer. Rhine’s claim is for unpaid demurrage, which by the time of the trial had been agreed and therefore was not the subject of any dispute, save by way of set-off of the counterclaim. The trial was therefore only concerned with Vitol’s counterclaim, which is a claim for breach of the charter by way of delay to the Vessel in proceeding to one of the load ports (for which it is said Rhine was responsible under the terms of the charter). The counterclaim is for the sum of US$3,692,106.72 (plus interest).

The delay to the Vessel was the result of the arrest in Ghana, at the suit of third parties, of various items of property on board the Vessel. The arrest of the property resulted in the Vessel being detained for some days until security was posted. There is a dispute between the parties as to whether, under the terms of the charter, Rhine is liable for the consequences of the detention and the delay that followed.

The resultant delay in the loading of the Vessel at its next port, Djeno, in Congo, is said by Vitol to have caused it to pay an increased price to the seller of the cargo there loaded. It is that increase in the price that forms the central element of Vitol’s claim against Rhine. In addition to issues on liability and causation, there were issues at trial as to the effect of certain of Vitol’s hedging arrangements on the recoverability of loss and as to remoteness of loss.

Thursday 18 April 2024

Re L-T (children)

By an Appellant’s Notice filed at this Court on 13 March 2024, this is an appeal against the decision of HHJ Gillespie, sitting in the Family Court, dated 6 March 2024. The appellant is the Local Authority who appeal the decision to refuse to determine the Local Authority’s threshold allegations as a result of which, there is no basis for public law orders to be made (and so the child must be returned to the parents care).

The Guardian appeals the same order.

Thursday 18 April 2024

Ghaoui (appellant) v London Borough of Waltham Forest (respondent)

By Appellants Notice filed on 24 March 2023, the Appellant below (A) appeal the order of Recorder Deal KC, sitting in Central London County Court, following her judgment dated 3 March 2023, dismissing A’s appeal against the Respondent (R) local authority’s review decision dated 17 October 2022, and making consequential costs orders.

A wishes his children to be educated in accordance with the Muslim faith. His two children attend an Islamic school in Leytonstone. By its decision of 17 October 2022 R upheld the original decision dated 19 November 2021, and concluded that accommodation offered to A in Harlow was suitable for A and his family and that it had discharged its duty under s193 HA.

A asked for a review of suitability following A’s refusal of the Harlow property. Representations were made including as to the Appellant’s preference for the children to be educated in accordance with their faith and as to the difficult travel arrangements to reach their school.

Thursday 18 April 2024

RRR Manufacturing Pty Ltd (claimant/respondent) v British Standards Institution (defendant/appellant) & anr

By an Appellant’s Notice filed on 25 March 2024, the Appellant, this is an application for permission to appeal, with appeal to follow, if permission is granted against the Judge’s decision to order an injunction preventing BSI, from suspending or withdrawing certification of the Respondent’s medical device and requiring BSI to use its powers to extend or renew certification until final determination of the Judicial Review claim.

Thursday 18 April 2024

Project Angel Bidco Ltd (In Administration) (appellant) v Axis Managing Agency Ltd (As Representative Of Syndicate 1686 At Lloyd’s Of London) & anr (respondents)

Appeal against the Order of HHJ Pelling KC (sitting as a HCJ) dated 31 October 2023.

The matter involved the trial of a limited number of preliminary issues that arose in the claim by the claimant against the defendant underwriters under a Buyer Side Warranty & Indemnity Insurance Policy underwritten on their behalf and issued on 3 December 2019 (“Policy”). A warranty & indemnity policy (“W&IP”) such as the Policy is a specialist insurance product by which those acquiring a company or business can insure against the risk that the target business is not in the state warranted by the vendors and thereby was worth less than the purchase price at the date when the sale took place.

On 19 November 2019, the claimant had exchanged with various vendors a Share and Purchase Agreement for the acquisition of the entire issued share capital of Knowsley Contractors Limited (trading as King Construction) (“Target”), which carried on business as a provider of civil engineering and general construction services mainly to local authorities and principally to Liverpool City Council. The claimant is now in administration and Target has been placed in liquidation, in each case allegedly as the result of the events alleged to entitle the claimant to claim an indemnity from the defendants under the Policy.

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