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 (opens in a new tab)
Click on the case title to be taken directly to the relevant YouTube page
Thursday 12 – Friday 13 May 2022
The Defendants below, appeal paragraph 1 of the Order of HHJ Keyser QC (High Court, Chancery Division), dated 4 May 2021 whereby he ordered that there be judgment for the claimant against the defendants, jointly and severally, for £382,600. The appeal is against the reasoning and order following the judge’s main judgment handed down on 4 May 2021. A separate judgment dealing with outstanding consequential matters was handed down on 23 July 2021.
Brief factual background: By a share purchase agreement dated 14 October 2015 (the SPA), the claimant, MDW Holdings Limited, purchased the entire share capital of G.D. Environmental Services Limited (GDE) from the three defendants for £3,584,224. Completion of the purchase took place on the date of the SPA. MDW alleged that GDE had been systematically breaching environmental law and unlawfully avoiding the costs of environmental compliance, thereby increasing its profits to levels that would not have been achieved if it had acted lawfully; and that, in consequence, MDW paid substantially more for the shares in GDE than they were worth. There were three categories of breaches which were said to cause loss: (1) ) leachate operations, namely the discharge of treated trade effluent into the public sewer containing high levels of amonia; (2) discharge of trade effluent directly into a public sever rather than through a sewage undertaker; (3) mixing hazardous wet waste and non-hazardous dry waste. The claim was prosecuted on the basis that the material period for assessing those breaches was in the two years preceding completion of the SPA. In respect of the three categories of breach which were said to deliver loss, it was alleged that GDE had in that material period unlawfully avoided the costs of environmental compliance, thereby increasing its profits to levels that would not have been achieved if it had acted lawfully. MDW claimed against the defendants damages for breach of warranty, for misrepresentation and, against one defendant alone, for deceit. The judge found that the defendants were in breach of warranty in relation to the sale of GDE on 14 October 2015, with the relevant breaches concerning the discharge of leachate as part of its trade effluent as a result of which it was in breach.
Tuesday 17 – Wednesday 18 May 2022
The 15 Claimants, collectively Gemalto, appeal, with permission from Mrs J Bacon, her order dated 28 January 2022, upon hearing a preliminary issue trial, whereby she dismissed their claims against the First to Fifth Defendants (D1- D5 ) as time barred and granted permission to appeal. Her order dated 14 February 2022 made consequential costs orders which are also appealed.
Preliminary issue hearing in a claim brought by Gemalto for damages for infringement of competition law by the Defendants in relation to the supply of Smart Card Chips (SCC).
It is a follow-on claim based on an infringement found by the European Commission in its Decision dated 3 September 2014 in Case AT.39574 Smart Card Chips (Decision) which found that between 2003- 2005 various suppliers of SCC had taken part in a cartel. The Full Decision was published 6 December 2016.
The Commission had previously requested Gemalto (a customer of the cartel companies) to provide information about its purchases in a certain period.
Proceedings were issued on 19 July 2019.
Issue: whether, as Gemalto contend, time to bring the claim only started running under s32 (1) (b) Limitation Act 1980 when the Commission announced adoption of its Decision or, as the Defendants contend, time started running at the latest April 2013 when the Commission announced it had sent a Statement of Objections (SO) to suspected participants in a SCC cartel.
The Judge found Gemalto had sufficient information at the time the SO was announced, taking account of other information also known to Gemalto, to plead a claim without waiting for the Decision.
Tuesday 17 – Wednesday 18 May 2022
The Appellants, John Wood Group PLC and Wood Group Canada INC (1st and 2nd Defendants below) appeal the two Orders of Jacobs J dated 7 October 2021. The Defendants seek to challenge the anti-suit injunction order, with a penal notice, which prohibits them from taking any further steps in the Alberta Proceedings against the applicants, or to pursue proceedings against the applicants in any other jurisdiction.
Background to the proceedings: The Claimants below are insurers. In separate but related proceedings, the Claimants sought to continue, on the return date, anti-suit injunctions which were granted on a without notice basis in August 2021. The injunctions relate to proceedings commenced by the 2nd Defendant against the Claimants in February 2021 in the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta. The basis of the application for anti-suit relief was, in the case of all the Claimants [apart from Allied World Assurance Company (Europe) DAC (“AWAC”) in a claim which is not pursued in the CoA], exclusive jurisdiction clauses in the relevant policies which provide for English jurisdiction. The Defendants’ principal argument, in opposition to the application, is that none of the policies, on their true construction, contain effective exclusive jurisdiction clauses. The Defendants contend that the injunctions should not be maintained because there was material non-disclosure by the Claimants on the without notice applications. Judgment was given on 24 September 2021, Jacobs J granted the Claimants’ application for a continuation of the anti-suit injunction, concluding there was no culpable non-disclosure which would justify declining to continue the injunction, which is necessary in order to preserve the contractual rights of AWAC and the insurers under the Global Umbrella and First and Third Excess policies.
Tuesday 17 – Wednesday 18 May 2022
(Appeal 1) The Appellants, Rhino Enterprises Properties Ltd and Askwith Investments Ltd (1st and 2nd Claimant below respectively) challenge the Order of HHJ Davis-White QC, dated 22 September 2021, by which he struck out their claim insofar as it alleged a breach of duty while acting as agents on behalf of the Claimants.
(Appeal 2) The Appellants, Robert Nicholas Jason Schofield (A1) and Rhino Enterprises Holdings Ltd (A2) (1st and 2nd Applicants below, respectively) challenge paragraph 1 of Order of HHJ Davis-White QC, dated 22 September 2021, by which he struck out their claim against the former joint administrators, Matthew David Smith and Clare Boardman (1st and 2nd Respondents below, respectively).
(Appeal 3) The Appellant Defendants, Clyde & Co challenge the Order of HHJ Davis-White QC, dated 22 September 2021, by which he struck out the claim against them insofar as it alleged a breach of duty whilst Clyde & Co were acting as agents on behalf of the Claimants.
The underlying proceedings relate to the interpretation of a Settlement Agreement dated 1 December 2015 reached at mediation when Barclays and the Settlement Companies settled the Barclays litigation. The SA has been interpreted by the court below as settling not only all claims against Barclays and its affiliates, but also any claims that each of the Settlement Companies might have against their own affiliates. The appeals are against the order of HHJ Davis-White QC, by which in reliance of the terms of the SA he struck out and dismissed claims.
Tuesday 17 – Wednesday 18 May 2022
The Appellants appeal paragraph 1, 3 and 4 of the Order of Mr Justice Zacaroli dated 24th June 2021 refusing to order the Respondents to repay their fees and remuneration under section 6(6) of the Insolvency Act 1986; refusing to order that the Respondents pay 75% of the Applicants’ costs; ordering that (i) the Applicants pay 80% of the Respondents’ costs of the proceedings and (ii) the Applicants make a payment on account of such costs.
Wednesday 18 May 2022
The Claimant appeals the Order of Thornton J dated 6 July 2021, by which she dismissed C’s claim for Judicial Review.
Factual background: This appeal concerns the application of the Community Infrastructure Levy (“CIL”) the purpose of which is to ensure that the costs incurred by public authorities in supporting the development of an area can be funded by the owners or developers of land without rendering development of the area unviable. Certain reliefs and exemptions from liability to pay CIL are obtainable. This led to a claim for judicial review before Thornton J which raised a point of principle as to whether the self-build exemption provided for in Regulation 54A of the Community Infrastructure Regulations (2010/948) (the “CIL Regulations”) applies to the grant of planning permission, pursuant to S73A Town and Country Planning Act 1990, for development already carried out. The Claimant contended that, on the plain wording of the CIL Regulations, the exemption does so apply, and this is consistent with the purpose of the exemption. The Defendant and Interested Party disagreed.
Thursday 19 May 2022
the Appellant/Defendants appeal the Order Of Mr Justice Marcus Smith dated 7th March 2022 by which he held European Patent (UK) 3,103,443 (the “Patent”) valid and infringed.
- 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)
Previous Court of Appeal (Civil Division) hearings
You can view previous cases on the Court of Appeal video archive page (opens in a new tab)