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.
Click on the case title to be taken directly to the relevant YouTube page
Tuesday 20 October 2020
The Claimant appeals the order of Morgan J dated 29 November 2019 sitting in the Chancery Division whereby he (1) declared between 14 January 2003 and 3 August 2017, the Claimant was , in relation to water and sewerage charges for the property identified in his order, a water re-seller within the meaning of the Water Resale Orders 2001 and 2006 (Resale Orders) (2) Declared the Claimant had over that period charged the Defendant in excess of the maximum charges set by the Resale Orders.
The Defendant is a secure weekly tenant of a flat owned by the Claimant. The Claimant had an arrangement between 14 January 2003 and 3 August 2017 with Thames Water Utilities Ltd whereby Thames charged the Claimant (rather than individual council tenants) for supplying water and sewerage services but at a reduced cost (taking into account a voids allowance and a commission paid to the Claimant; which the Judge found to be a sum to compensate for the cost of collecting the charges and for the risk of non-recovery). The Defendant is obliged under his tenancy agreement to pay water and sewerage charges to the Claimant. The Defendant argued he should pay charges based on the reduced cost.
Tuesday 20 October 2020
Appeal against the Order of Mr Ockelton (Vice President of the Upper Tribunal) (31 July 2019) that dismissed the claim for judicial review.
The Interested Party, Benfleet Scrap Ltd, operates a scrap metal yard in Benfleet. Planning permission was granted for that use in 2002. In 2018, the Interested Party applied for planning permission for a 5 metre high wall to be constructed along the south and east boundaries of the site it occupied, development had already begun without planning permission. The Appellant, who owns some land adjacent to the site, objected, he hoped to develop it for residential and other purposes. Planning permission was granted by Castlepoint Borough Council.
Tuesday 27 – Wednesday 28 October 2020
The First Defendant (PWC) appeals with permission in part from Fancourt J from his order dated 25 November 2019, following his substantive judgment dated 15 November 2019. His judgment dated 25 November 2019 dealt with consequential matters. Two applications were before the Judge (i) PWC’s application dated 26 March 2019 to strike out or obtain summary judgment in respect of the claim or parts of it, made on four grounds (ii) PWC’s application dated 27 July 2015 also to strike out/for summary judgment of the claim (the 2015 application). The Judge dismissed both applications, made consequential costs orders and granted permission in part.
Wednesday 28 October 2020
There are two linked appeals: both filed by R4 and R5 as they were below.
The first is against the order of HHJ Paul Matthews dated 4/2/20 sitting in the Bristol County Court when he ordered that an application by R4 and R5 to strike out the originating application by R1’s trusteees in bankruptcy be transferred to the High Court.
The judge granted PTA to R4 and R5 and directed that their appeal be transferred to the Court of Appeal.
The judge stated that it is not as clear as it sought to be whether rule 12.30 of the Insolvency Rules 2016 prevents a transfer of a part of proceedings (as the CPR clearly do), and the authorities do not speak with one voice.
The second appeal is against an order made by HHJ Matthews (sitting as a High Court Judge). He granted PTA to the CA. The order concerned the application by R4 and R5 to strike out an originating application by the R1’s trustee in bankrupty, alternatively for summary judgment.
The judge refused the application to strike out and allowed in part the application for summary judgment.
The judge differed from the views of another judge of coordinate jurisdiction and granted PTA to the CA as there needs to be clarity on an important practical point arising from r 12.9 of the IR 2016 and its possible interplay with limitation rules.
Thursday 29 October 2020
Application for permission to re-open an order of the Court of Appeal (14/11/19) that refused an application for permission to appeal.
The Appellant, a local resident, challenged the decision of the Council to grant approval for reserved matters relating to a development at Hoplands Farm for which outline planning permission for a development of up to 250 houses was granted on 5 July 2017.
- View the live stream from Court 71 on YouTube
- View the live stream from Court 73 on YouTube
- View the live stream from Court 76 on YouTube
Previous Court of Appeal (Civil Division) hearings
You can view previous cases on the Court of Appeal video archive page