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 28 March 2023

Re: SO (claimant/appellant) v Thanet District Council & others (defendant/respondent)

The Appellant sought to challenge the service of a directions notice pursuant to s77 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 dated 30 November 2021 on or around 1 December 2021 by which the Respondent directed all occupants of the land, including the Appellant who was an authorised occupier of the land.

Permission to apply for judicial review was refused on the papers and following an oral renewal, the judge finding that the temporary licence period had ended, and the direction was neither unlawful nor irrational.

Tuesday 28 March 2023

Re: B-C (children)

By an Appellant’s Notice filed on 27 January 2023, this is an appeal against the decision of HHJ Tolson, sitting in the Family Court, dated 8 December 2022. This is an appeal by Cambridgeshire County Council against the refusal of their application for a Placement Order.

Tuesday 28 – Thursday 30 March 2023

UniCredit Bank A.G. (claimant/appellant) v Euronav N.V. (defendant/respondent)

By Appellant’s Notice filed on 19 May 2022, the Claimant appeals the Order of Mrs Justice Moulder DBE dated 28 April 2022.

Background – This is a claim for damages brought by the claimant Bank, the lawful holder of the Bill of Lading (“the Bill”) for the alleged breach by the Defendant of the Bill by delivering (part of) a cargo of low sulphur oil fuel to a third party requiring production of the Bill. The Bank’s case is that Owners’ action was a breach of the contract contained in and evidenced by the Bill. The Bank lost its security interest in the Financed Cargo as a result and claims damages of US$24,701,600.

Tuesday 28 – Wednesday 29 March 2023

Malik v St George’s University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust

By Appellants Notice filed 30 March 2022, Sidra Bilal and Hassaan Aziz Malik, the Appellants and children of the original Claimant, Mr Mukhtar Malik (Deceased), appeal the order of HHJ Peter Blair QC dated 12 July 2021, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, dismissing the Deceased’s claim and entering judgment for the Defendant and making a consequential costs order.

The Deceased brought a clinical negligence/personal injury claim following elective surgery on 13 August 2015 which resulted in spinal cord injury. This followed emergency spinal cord surgery in 2014 leaving the Deceased with (non negligent) neurological damage. The Deceased’s death on 14 July 2021 was said to arise from illness secondary to his spinal condition.

Tuesday 28 – Thursday 30 March 2023

Floreat Investment Management Ltd v Churchill & ors

In the first appeal, Zaki Mohammed Nuseibeh (3rd Defendant below), appeals the Order of Mr Justice Robin Knowles CBE dated 18 February 2022.

In the second appeal, Benjamin Churchill, Oumar Diallo, IR Relations Ltd and Fatoumata Diallo (1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th Defendants below), appeal the Order of Mr Justice Robin Knowles CBE dated 18 February 2022.

Background: In 2017 Reading Football Club Limited raised finance of US$22,374,000 from Global Fixed Income Fund 1 Limited (“the Fund”). The Defendants were the individuals responsible, on behalf of the Fund, for managing the redemption of a Loan Facility. The Defendants diverted half of the Termination fee for themselves. The Claimant sued the Defendants for its return. The Judge found, as a matter of fact, that the Defendants (i) were not entitled to divert and receive the money; (ii) they knew this; and (iii) they each crossed the line from honesty to dishonesty when doing so.

Wednesday 29 March 2023

Devine v The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities & anr

The Appellant sought to challenge the decision of the planning inspector dated 23 November 2021. An enforcement notice was served in respect of land owned by the Appellant and alleged the erection of a “new” building and the erection of a boundary wall and fence. It required, amount other things, the demolition of the building. The Appellant’s case was that he had repaired and improved the building (a barn) and not substantially reconstructed it. The Appellant later applied for residential use of the building although it was not at that point suitable for residential occupation.

The effect of the judgment is that a barn, over 100 years old, will have to be demolished due to the works carried out by the Appellant; in case where building works have been ongoing for over 20 years, the appeal raises an arguable issue as to how the four year rule should be interpreted and applied.

Wednesday 29 March 2023

Contra Holdings Ltd (appellant) v Bamford (respondent)

This is an appeal against the Order of Jacobs J dated 28 September 2022.

The judgment concerned an application dated 11 October 2021 (“the Application”) by which the Defendant, Mark Bamford sought to strike out the Claim Form (and in so far as relevant the Particulars of Claim) pursuant to CPR 3.4 (2) (a), on the basis that the statement of case of the Claimant (“Contra”) disclosed no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim. Alternatively, the Defendant sought “reverse” summary judgment under CPR 24.2 (a) (i), contending that the Claimant has no real prospect of succeeding on the claim.

Wednesday 29 March 2023

Adaptive Spectrum & Signal Alignment Inc (claimant/appellant) v British Telecommunications plc (defendant/respondent)

This is an appeal against the Orders of Falk J (1) dismissing the claim (6/7/22) and (2) consequential orders (28/7/22).

This involved a Part 8 claim for declaratory relief in respect of the proper interpretation of a clause in a patent licence dated 27 July 2015 (the “Licence”) entered into between the Claimant, Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment Inc (“ASSIA”) and the Defendant, British Telecommunications plc (“BT”). Under the Licence each party granted the other a licence in respect of certain patents, the relevant licence being that granted by ASSIA to BT.

The particular subject matter of the dispute is Dynamic Line Management technology (“DLM”). This is technology that monitors the performance of DSL lines and, based on that performance, applies re-profiling to improve performance. ASSIA’s products included a product called DSL Expresse®, which performs DLM functions.

Thursday 30 March 2023

(1) Onakoya (appellant) v The Secretary of State for Work & Pensions (respondent)
(2) Bui (appellant) v The Secretary of State for Work & Pensions (respondent)

By Appellants Notices filed on 2 November 2022, the Claimants, in separate proceedings, Ms Onakoya and Ms Bui appeal the decision of the Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) of 18 July 2022 (reasons) and order dated 6 October 2022.

On 18 July 2022 the Upper Tribunal dismissed both Ms Onakoya and Ms Bui’s claims for judicial review. The UT heard the matters together as they raised ” broadly identical” issues.

Issue – the Respondent makes payment of Universal Credit (UC) and advance payments on account of UC only to people with a National Insurance number (NIno). Is that restriction lawful?

Both C’s say there is no legislative requirement to have a NIno to receive UC or advance payments. The Respondent’s UC computer system is said to require a fully verified NIno in order to make such payments.

Thursday 30 March 2023

The General Dental Council (defendant/appellant) v Williams (claimant/respondent)

By Appellant’s Notice filed on 28 June 2022, the Appellant appeals the Order, dated 7 June 2022, of Mr Justice Richie, sitting in Kings Bench Division, Administrative Court which allowed an Appeal by the Respondent from some of the findings and decisions of the GDC Professional Conduct Committee (PCC).

Background – The Respondent was a dentist, regulated by the Appellant, who had a mixed practice of NHS and private work. This case concerns the provision of all ceramic crowns to three patients. All ceramic crowns are available on the NHS but they cost more in laboratory fees and therefore reduce the practice’s profitability. In relation to the three patients, the Respondent charged a supplemental laboratory fee, in addition to the NHS charge.

Court 63

Court 70

Court 71

Court 73

Court 74

Court 75

Court 1 Rolls Building

Court 17 Rolls Building