Skip to main content

The Court of Appeal (Civil Division) – Live streaming of court hearings

How and why are court cases being streamed online?

Selected cases from the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) are now being live-streamed on the judiciary’s YouTube channel.

Live-streaming of selected cases began in November 2018 to improve public access to, and understanding of, the work of the courts. It is anticipated that every hearing in Court 71 (the Master of the Rolls’ court) will be live streamed.

View previous cases on the Court of Appeal video archive page.

Next Hearings:

Click on the case title to be taken directly to the relevant YouTube page

Tuesday 15th June 2021

Pantellerisco & others (claimant/respondent) –v- The Secretary Of State for Work and Pensions (defendant/appellant)

This is an appeal against the Order of Garnham J (20/7/20) that allowed the claim for judicial review and declared that the calculation required by regulation 82(1)(a) read together with regulation 54 of the Universal Credit Regulations 2013 is irrational and unlawful in so far as employees who are paid on a four weekly basis (as opposed to a calendar monthly basis) are treated as having earned income of only 28 days’ earnings in 11 out of 12 assessment periods a year.

The Respondent and her three children challenged the approach adopted by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to the calculation of the benefit cap in the Universal Credit statutory scheme. The application raised questions as to the proper construction of the Universal Credit Regulations 2013, the legality of those regulations and the Appellant’s application of them in the Respondents’ case.

Lower Court Judgment:


Tuesday 15th June 2021

Milton Keynes Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

Milton Keynes Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (MK) appeal the decision of the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) dated 23 July 2020, Zacaroli J and UTJ Thomas Scott sitting, dismissing MK’s appeal against the decision of the First tier Tribunal dated 29 April 2019.

The UK has 2 main public sector VAT refund schemes; set out in the Value Added Tax Act 1994 (VATA) at s33 (relating to public authorities) and s41 (relating to government departments and NHS authorities). The s41 scheme is called Contracted Out Services VAT (COS  VAT). In this case MK incurred expenditure on the installation of a computer system. MK paid VAT on the price to its supplier then reclaimed the VAT under the COS VAT scheme.  HMRC raised an assessment dated 17 July 2017 for overclaimed VAT under s73 (2) VATA.

MK appealed against that assessment on 2 grounds (1) that the assessment  to VAT was invalid because MK (and other such bodies) could not be assessed to tax under s73 (2) (2)the VAT in issue was recoverable in full under the COS VAT rules. The FTT and the UT both dismissed the appeal on (1). The UT found any such assessment can be appealed to the FTT. The appeal here is concerned with (1).

Lower Court Judgment:


Tuesday 15th June 2021 – Wednesday 16th June 2021

United Trade Action Group Ltd & anr (claimant/respondent) –v- Transport for London & anr (defendant/appellant)

Appeal against the Order of Mrs Justice Lang dated 20 January 2021 where the judicial review claim was allowed on Ground 1 in respect of the Plan and Guidance, but not the A10 Order, and on Grounds 2, 4 and 5 of the consolidated claims; judicial review was refused on Ground 3 of the consolidated claims. The London Streetspace Plan was quashed; the Applicant’s Interim Guidance to Boroughs was quashed; the A10 GLA Roads (Norton Folgate, Bishopsgate and Gracechurch Street, City of London) (Temporary Banned Turns and Prohibition of Traffic and Stopping) Order 2020 (the A10 Order) was quashed and orders on costs were made.

Lower Court Judgments:


Wednesday 16th June 2021

McGaw (claimant/respondent) –v- The Welsh Ministers & another (defendant/appellant)

Appeal against the Order of HHJ Jarman QC (sitting as a HCJ) (23/10/20) that quashed the Welsh Ministers decision to refuse an appeal for a certificate of lawful use or development.

The Respondent sought to build a garden room in the garden of his home in Swansea.

Lower Court judgment:


Wednesday 16th June 2021

DN (applicant/respondent) –v- UD (respondent/appellant)

This is the Father’s appeal against the order of Mr Justice Williams dated 7th July 2020 in the Family Division of the High Court making Orders consequent on his judgment on 29th January 2020 for orders for the Mother on her application pursuant to S15 and Sch 1 of the Children’s Act 1989.

In January 2020 Mr Justice Williams heard the Mother’s applications under S15 and Sch 1 of he Children’s Act 1989 and gave judgement in favour of the Mother.  The parties were to have agreed an order following that judgment, and if not able to agree, the matter was to be restored before him.  The Father now appeals the Orders made at that restored hearing.


Thursday 17th June 2021

Valbonne Estates Ltd (applicant/appellant) –v- Cityvalue Estates Ltd & anr (respondent/respondent)

The applicant, Valbonne Estates Ltd, appeal the order of Bacon J dated 11 March 2021 (amended on 14 March 2021), whereby he discharged the injunction, dismissed the applicant’s application for a re-grant of the injunction, ordered costs against the applicant on the indemnity basis and ordered that the Respondents shall have liberty to apply for an order that their costs be paid personally by the Director of the applicant and/or apply for a wasted costs order.

The dispute involves property investment companies and concerns a leasehold interest in a property known as Beckton Arms, Beckton Road, London. On 10 December 2020, Mann J granted the applicant a pre-action injunction on a without notice basis restraining the first respondent from selling or otherwise disposing of etc the property and restraining the second respondent from acquiring any interest in the property and restraining both respondents from registering at the Land Registry any dealing with the property that has already taken place.  This was the return date of the injunction. Bacon J found that the applicant had given information that was inaccurate and misleading.

Lower Court Judgment:


Thursday 17th June 2021

Re: I-A (children)

This is an appeal the decision of Peel J, sitting in the High Court – Family Division, dated 18 December 2020. The mother appeals against the refusal to revoke the Placement Order dated 14 June 2019 and the Adoption Order dated 6 April 2020.

The case concerns three boys. The mother opposes the finality of Care and Placement Orders dated 14 June 2019 and/or the Adoption Orders dated 6 April 2020 and is seeking the court to invoke its inherent jurisdiction to revoke the orders. The background to the case is that the children were removed from their parents care in following an incident in which A presented at hospital in considerable distress and upon examination it was discovered that he had suffered a fracture to his femur, together with a healing fracture of the right tibia. Further following a fact finding hearing it was found that A sustained a number of non-accidental injuries caused by either mother and/or father. The children were therefore removed from their parents.


Thursday 17th June 2021

Capitol Park Leeds PLC (claimant/respondent) –v- Global Radio Services Ltd (defendant/appellant)

The Appellant/Defendant appeals the Order of Deputy High Court Judge Nolan QC, dated 23 October 2020 in which he declared that the lease dated 4 March 2002 of the property knows as 1 Sterling Court, Topcliffe Lane, Capitol Park in Leeds did not terminate on 12 November 2017, but continues until 11 November 2025, and made consequential costs orders.

The Appellant/Defendant is the tenant under the lease agreement dated 4 March 2002. The 1st Respondent was the landlord. The Appellant/Defendant argues that it validly exercised the break clause of the lease agreement and terminated the lease on 12 November 2017.  The case concerns the validity of the exercise of a tenant’s break clause in a lease of commercial premises. Specifically, whether the Appellant complied with a condition in the break clause requiring it to give vacant possession of the premises.

Lower Court Judgment:


Court 63

Court 70

Court 71

Court 73

Court 74

Court 75


Previous Court of Appeal (Civil Division) hearings

You can view previous cases on the Court of Appeal video archive page