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 24 January 2023
By an Appellant’s Notice filed on 17 November 2022, this is an appeal against the decision of HHJ Richard Clarke, sitting in the Family Court, dated 3 November 2022. The appellant is the Local Authority who seeks to appeal against the case management decision made by HHJ Clarke to refuse to list the matter for a Fact-Finding hearing to consider additional findings.
Wednesday 25 – Thursday 26 January 2023
By Appellant’s Notice filed on 18 July 2022, D1 to D5 appeal against the Order of Judge Jones, sitting as a High Court Judge dated 6 May 2022 which declared that the beneficial interest in the issued share capital of the 5th Defendant (Derivative Risk Solutions (“DRSL”)) is the partnership property of a partnership formed between the Claimant and the 1st, 2nd , 3 rd and 4th Defendants on 18 June 2012 (“the DRSL Shareholding Partnership”); 2. That the DRSL Shareholding Partnership was dissolved on 30 November 2017; and 3. That the DRSL Shareholding Partnership ought to be wound up by the Court.
Wednesday 25 January 2023
By appellant’s notice filed on 30 November 2021, the appellant, Mr Bell, appeals the decision of Upper Tribunal Judges Jonathan Richards and Jonathan Cannan, whereby they dismissed his appeal against a case management decision of the First tier Tribunal dated 30 October 2019.
The substantive appeals that are before the First Tier Tribunal are appeals by Mr. Bell and Mr. Mitchell against Personal Liability Notices issued against each of them by HMRC under the provisions of paragraph 19(1) of Schedule 24 to the Finance Act 2007. HMRC seeks to make each of Mr. Bell and Mr. Mitchell liable to pay 50% of the penalties assessed against two companies (“the Universal Companies”) jointly owned by Mr. Bell and Mr. Mitchell on the grounds that each of them was an “officer” of the companies and that the deliberate inaccuracy that led to the imposition of penalties assessed on the companies was attributable to them.
The FTT heard two applications in respect to: 1) an application by HMRC that HMRC should be permitted to disclose to Mr Bell certain documents relating to the tax affairs of Mr Mitchell and companies connected to him and 2) an application by Mr Mitchell that the same documents should be excluded from evidence at the substantive hearing of the appeals. The FTT, with the agreement of the parties, split the documents into a number of categories. The FTT decided that certain documents in one category concerning a section of any document containing any mention of interaction between the Universal Companies with other companies controlled or allegedly controlled by Mr Mitchell and Mr Bell were only admissible to the extent that they referred to companies mentioned in HMRC’s Statement of Case. The FTT further decided that anything which went to Mr Mitchell’s or Mr Bell’s credibility were not relevant in the absence of any pleaded case by HMRC that Mr Mitchell’s statements about his other tax affairs were unreliable.
Wednesday 25 January 2023
By Appellant’s Notice filed on 17/8/22, the Defendant appeals against the order made by Smith J dated 22/6/22 dismissing D’s application under CPR 11(1)) (no jurisdiction) or under CPR 3.4(2)(a) (abuse of process).
The background is that the parties entered into standstill agreement close to expiry of limitation: the dispute resolution procedure contained a condition precedent to the right to begin proceedings. The C chose not to comply with the condition and issued proceedings: this deprived Ds of limitation defence. The Ds applied to strike out the claim.
The underlying case concerned alleged defects in construction works begin in June 2004 and completed in April 2007. The matter proceeds to trial in 2024.
Thursday 26 – Friday 27 January 2023
Appeal 1 – By appellant’s notice filed on 29 June 2022, the claimants (Bilta & others) appeal the order of Marcus Smith J dated 8 June 2022, whereby he ordered that the fifth defendant shall pay to the claimants 7.5% of their costs of the proceedings prior to 22 February 2022 and that such payment shall discharge the fifth defendant’s liability to make any payment pursuant to paragraph 2(1) of the order of the Court of Appeal dated 19 January 2021.
Appeal 2 – By appellant’s notice filed on 29 June 2022, the fifth defendant, Tradition Financial Services Ltd (TFS) appeals the order of Marcus Smith J dated 8 June 2022 (judgment handed down on 31 March 2022), whereby he ordered that judgment be entered against the fifth defendant in favour of the 8th to 9th and 14th to 15th claimants and made consequential costs orders
- View the live stream from Court 63 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 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)