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)
Next Hearings:
Click on the case title to be taken directly to the relevant YouTube page
Tuesday 26th October 2021
This is an appeal by the Defendant of the orders made by Mr Justice Teare dated 7 and 31 July 2020
The claim arises from the events of Storm Emma which hit Holyhead from the North East in March 2018. The Marina in Holyhead harbour was damaged in that the pontoons forming the Marina broke up or became detached. Many craft moored in the Marina were damaged. There is evidence that 89 craft were damaged. It is said, based upon expert evidence, that the design, construction and maintenance of the Marina were defective. In particular, there is no shelter from the North East. Many claims are anticipated and so the Claimant, Holyhead Marina Limited, has issued proceedings seeking a limitation of its liability pursuant to section 191 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995. The Defendants to that limitation action are the owners of the damaged craft. The claims are said to total some £5 million whereas, according to the Claimant, the limit of its liability is some £550,000. The Defendants resist the claim to limit. The Claimant has issued an application seeking to strike out these allegations and/or for summary judgment on their claim for a limitation decree.
Lower Court Judgment:
Holyhead Marina Ltd v Farrer & Ors (Emma) [2020] EWHC 1750 (Admlty) (07 July 2020) (bailii.org)
Tuesday 26th – Wednesday 27th October 2021
Hajjaj –v- The City of Westminster & Akhter –v- LB of Waltham Forest
Hajjaj -Mr Hajjaj (the Applicant, A) appeals the order of Recorder Cohen QC dated 4 March 2021 sitting in Central London County Court (1) dismissing A’s appeal against the Respondent housing authority’s (R) review decision dated 23 September 2020 and (2) confirming the review decision. He also made consequential costs orders.
The review decision found that the property in question offered to A of ” private rented sector offer” (PRSO) accommodation was suitable accommodation in final discharge of their duty under s193 HA.
Issue of construction on what constitutes a “PRSO” for the purposes of s193 (7F) HA and the approach to be taken to Article 3 of the Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) (England) Order 2012
Akhter – Ms Akther the Applicant, (A) appeals the order of HHJ Gerald dated 22 March 2021 sitting in Central London County Court, dismissing A’s appeal against the Respondent local authority’s (R) review decision dated 12 October 2020 and making a consequential costs order.
The review decision decided that a property being a private rented sector offer (PRSO) of accommodation outside R’s district, was suitable accommodation and A’s refusal of that offer finally discharged R’s duty under s193 HA & Part 7 HA.
Issues (1) what constitutes a PRSO for the purposes of s193 (7F) HA (2) how an authority discharges their duty under s208 HA when placing an applicant in accommodation out of district.
Tuesday 26th – Wednesday 27th October 2021
Carrington –v- Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs
This appeal concerns complex questions of EU social security co-ordination legislation, with significant implications for the public purse. The fundamental issue is whether a person who leaves the UK to reside in another Member State can continue to receive an existing award of child benefit in their new Member State. Child benefit is a non-contributory, residence-based benefit funded by taxation in the UK.
Tuesday 26th – Wednesday 27th October 2021
Cunningham –v- Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council
The Applicant/Claimant appeals the Order of HHJ Platts dated 30 November 2020, sitting as a High Court Judge, dismissing the claim and making a costs order. Permission to appeal was refused by the same Order.
This is a claim for damages for personal injury sustained by the Applicant who was a teacher at a special school after he had been struck by a pupil at the school.
Wednesday 27th October 2021
K Line PTE Ltd (claimant/resp) –v- Priminds Shipping (HK) Co Ltd (def/appellant)
Priminds Shipping, appeals paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Order of Andrew Baker J. of 07 September 2020 and paragraph 1 of his Order of 17 September 2020.
The appeal is said to raise questions of considerable importance to the shipping industry about the nature of demurrage and its exclusivity as a remedy where a voyage charterer has, in admitted breach of contract, failed to complete cargo operations within agreed laytime and so detained the chartered ship. In particular, does demurrage operate as a liquidated and exclusive remedy for all consequences of that breach, or does it only liquidate damages in respect of one certain type of loss, vis., loss of the use of the vessel?
Lower Court Judgment:
Wednesday 27th October 2021
Pawley –v- Whitecross Dental Care Ltd & ors
The Claimant (C) appeals the order of HHJ Parkes QC dated 7 September 2020 sitting in Swindon County Court dismissing C’s appeal against the order of DJ Whiteley dated 25 November 2019 and directing consequential matters including costs be dealt with following written submissions
Alleged dental clinical negligence claim for damages of £100,000. The dental practice was operated by the First and/or Second Defendants (D1/D2) at the time C was a patient. D1 & D2’s Defence dated 20 June 2019 denied a non delegable duty of vicarious liability on the basis that the treating dentists were (in effect) independent self employed contractors
Thursday 28th October 2021
Application for permission to appeal, with appeal to follow if permission is granted. The appeal is by the police against an order made in the family court where their applications for Public Interest Immunity and siclosure of medical records.
Thursday 28th October 2021
The First and Second Defendants appeal the order of HHJ Cooke, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, dated 1 December 2020, whereby he refused the Applicants permission to amend their Defence and Counterclaim to allege that two caravan sites were beneficially owned by them and were not assets of the Riverside Partnership and made no order as to the costs of the committal application made by the Claimant.
Thursday 28th October 2021
By Appellant’s Notice filed on 23 February 2021, the Respondent Ms Mary Adwoa Akyaa Boakye (the Appellant here, the Tenant) appeals the decision of the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) dated 18 December 2020, by which she set aside the First Tier Tribunal decision dated 7 February 2020 regarding the Tenant’s liability for service and administration charges pursuant to her lease.
Tenant holds a 125 year lease of one of 18 flats. The Appellant below, Kensquare Limited (Kensquare) , is the freeholder and had applied to the FTT for a determination of the reasonableness and payability of interim service charges for the years 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 under Section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and for a determination under Schedule 11 to the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 as to the Tenant’s liability to pay legal costs as an administration charge under the lease.
The First Tier Tribunal found in favour of the Tenant, reducing the amount of interim service charges payable, limiting the legal costs recoverable by Kensquare to only the 192.50 pounds incurred in preparing and serving a section 146 notice and holding that the Tenant was not liable to pay any of the legal costs associated with the Tribunal hearing.
The Respondent appealed with permission. The UT held that time was not of the essence for compliance and the August 2019 Demand was effective to increase the interim service charges for each of the financial years ending 31 March 2018 and 2019. The UT further held that legal costs incurred in relation to 2017 proceedings and the subsequent section 146 notice are in principle recoverable under para.5 of the 4th Sch. However, the FTT did not determine whether the 2017 Proceedings had been taken with a view to giving a s.146 notice and so this has been remitted to the FTT. The UT further held that legal costs incurred in relation to the recovery of service charges were also recoverable.
Lower Court Judgment:
Court 63
- View the live stream from Court 63 on YouTube (external link, opens in a new tab)
Court 70
- View the live stream from Court 70 on YouTube (external link, opens in a new tab)
Court 71
- View the live stream from Court 71 on YouTube (external link, opens in a new tab)
Court 73
- View the live stream from Court 73 on YouTube (external link, opens in a new tab)
Court 74
- View the live stream from Court 74 on YouTube (external link, opens in a new tab)
Court 75
- 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)