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

Monday 26 – Tuesday 27 September 2022

Mur Shipping BV (claimant/respondent) v RTI Ltd (defendant/appellant)

By Appellant’s Notice filed on 1st April 2022, the Defendant RIT appeals, with permission, the Order of Mr Justice Jacobs dated 3rd March 2022 in which he allowed the Claimant’s appeal under s69 of the Arbitration Act 1996; set aside the Award insofar as it held the Claimant liable for damages in respect of the seven vessels chartered in the period during which it suspended its performance of the Contract of Affreightment on grounds of force majeure; remitted the matter to the Tribunal to determine how the Award should be amended in light of that and made an order as to costs.

Background
The Tribunal Award upheld RTI’s claim for breach of a contract of affreightment made between the parties dated 9 June 2016 (“the COA”), which provided for RTI to ship, and MUR to carry, bauxite in bulk from Conakry, Guinea, to Dneprobugsky, Ukraine, between 1 July 2016 and 30 June 2018. RTI claimed the cost of obtaining substitute performance of MUR’s obligations under the COA during periods in which MUR failed to perform. In relation to one of the periods in respect of which RTI claimed, MUR pleaded a force majeure defence, saying that performance had been lawfully suspended pursuant to clause 36 of the COA due (among other things) to difficulties with RTI making freight payments in US dollars following the sanctioning of their parent company, UC Rusal. The Tribunal accepted that the FM Clause was engaged subject to the “reasonable endeavours” point, but concluded that payment in Euros was “a completely realistic alternative” to payment in US dollars and that as a result MUR’s force majeure case failed. Jacobs J disagreed and allowed MUR’s appeal on the basis that “reasonable endeavours” could not entail the acceptance of non-contractual performance. However, he granted RTI permission to appeal on the basis that the appeal had a real prospect of success and raised a question of general importance.

Thursday 29 September 2022

Bacci & ors (claimants/respondents) v Green (defendant/appellant)

By appellant’s notice filed on 31 March 2022, the Defendant appeals the order of Andrew Hochhauser QC dated 7 March 2022, whereby he ordered that the Defendant shall delegate to Candey his power to notify HMRC that he is revoking his Enhanced Protection concerning his lifetime allowance and to notify HMRC that he is seeing Individual Protection 2016, that the Defendant shall delegate to Candey his power to elect to draw down on his pension under the Richard Green (Fine Paintings) Executive Pension Scheme and that Candey shall have authority to elect that the Applicant draws down on his pension, by way of taking a Pension Commencement Lump Sum, Lifetime Allowance Excess Lump Sum and/or any other pension, by providing notice in writing to the Interested Party. The order is accompanied by a penal notice.

The Respondents obtained a judgment against the Appellant in the sum of £3,233,625.76 in respect to loans obtained dishonestly by him. As the judgment debt relates to fraud, it survives the later bankruptcy order made against the Appellant. The Respondents sought to enforce the judgment by obtaining injunctions under the Senior Courts Act 1981 for delegation of the Appellant’s rights to call for a tax free lump sum under a Pension Scheme, his right to call for a pension under the Scheme and his power to notify HMRC that he is revoking his Enhanced Protection concerning his lifetime allowance. It is presumed that ultimately the Respondents will seek to get payment of the judgment debt out of the pension lump sums.

Court 63

Court 70

Court 71

Court 73

Court 74

Court 75

Court 1 Rolls Building

Court 17 Rolls Building