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

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:

 

Monday 24th June

CPRE Surrey (1) and POW Campaign Ltd (2) –v- Waverley Borough Council & Others

In these two appeals, the appellants CPRE and POW (POW is a campaigning organisation representing a large number of local residents both in the Dunsfold area, but also across other parts of Waverley. CPRE Surrey is the Surrey Branch of the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England) seek to challenge under s.113 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase act 2004 the adoption of the Local Plan (part 1) adopted by Waverley Borough Council.

Click here for the full lower court Judgment

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2018/2969.html

 

Wednesday 26th June & Thursday 27th June

Hallett –v- Derby Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

This appeal raises a question concerning the extent to which D complied with its contractual obligation to monitor whether junior doctors employed by it take their 30 minutes’ natural breaks after approximately 4 hours’ continuous duty. Where non-compliance is demonstrated, junior doctors are entitled to a supplement to their pay. The issue in this appeal concerns matters of contractual interpretation, namely the criteria that need to be satisfied for monitoring to be valid.

Click here for the full lower court Judgment

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2018/796.html

 

Tuesday 2nd & Wednesday 3rd July 2019

The Secretary of State for the Home Department –v- MS (a child by his litigation friend)

This is an appeal of the Secretary of State for the Home Department (SSHD) against a decision of Upper Tribunal Immigration and Asylum Chamber (UTIAC) to allow the claim for judicial review of the SSHD’s refusal of a take charge request under the Dublin III Regulation in respect of an unaccompanied minor in France seeking to join his brother in the UK. The SSHD did not accept the family relationship. In granting permission to apply for judicial review, UTIAC ordered the SSHD to take all reasonable steps to facilitate the DNA testing of the claimant in France. The SSHD was unable to do so and provided reasons in evidence to UTIAC. UTIAC went on to make its own findings that the brothers were related. The SSHD has now accepted a fresh take charge request on the basis of the relationship.

Permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal was granted in part by UTIAC on grounds 6 and 7 as novel issues of general importance. The grounds raise the issue of whether UTIAC had been correct to make its own findings that the brothers were related as claimed.

Click here for the full lower court Judgment:

https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/IAC/2018/9.html

 

Thursday 4th July

The Electoral Commission –v- The Good Law Project and others

This is an appeal against the Order of Lord Justice Leggatt and Mr Justice Green (as he then was) of the 4th October 2018 that granted the application for judicial review and declared that payments of £620,000 made by Vote Leave Ltd to Aggregate IQ Data Services Ltd to pay for advertising services were referendum expenses incurred by Vote Leave Ltd.

The issue in this case is whether the Electoral Commission (the statutory body responsible for overseeing elections and referendums in the UK) has correctly interpreted the law which limited spending by participants in connection with the referendum held in June 2016 on whether or not the UK should remain a member of the European Union. More particularly, the issue is whether the Electoral Commission was correct to conclude that, on the proper interpretation of the legislation, certain payments made by Vote Leave Limited were not “referendum expenses” incurred by Vote Leave but only donations made by Vote Leave to meet expenses incurred by another campaigner for a ‘leave’ outcome of the referendum called Mr Darren Grimes.

Click here for the full lower court Judgment:

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2018/2414.html

 

Tuesday 9th July 2019

Parr –v- Keystone Healthcare Limited and others

This is an appeal in respect to the order of HHJ Stephen Davies, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, dated 18 June 2018, whereby he gave judgment for the First Respondent in the sum of £659,612.04 upon the overpayment claim.

The appellant previously owned and controlled the company, `Keystone’, which was a healthcare employment agency, along with two others. Keystone claimed that the appellant had committed various financial frauds, breached fiduciary duties, misused confidential information and acted in breach of restrictive covenants. The `Overpayment claim’ related to a sum of money the other owners of Keystone had been persuaded to pay to the First Defendant to acquire his shareholding in Keystone. They argued that, had they known of his misconduct in relation to Keystone, they would have been entitled to compulsorily acquire his shareholding for its true value less a 50% discount.

Click here for the full lower court Judgment:

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2018/1509.html

 

Wednesday 10th July 2019

Adesotu –v- London Borough of Lewisham

The Appellant Ms Adesotu appeals the order of HHJ Luba dated 8 February 2019. The appellant brought an appeal under s204 of the Housing Act 1996 against the review decision made by the local authority in respect of her application for homelessness housing assistance. The review decision concluded the property offered to her had been suitable and the decision to discharge their duty, following her refusal to accept the property, was correct.

Click here for the full lower court Judgment:

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/Misc/2019/3.html

Court 71

  • View the live stream from Court 71 directly on YouTube here.

Court 73

  • View the live stream from Court 73 directly on YouTube here.

Court 76

  • View the live stream from Court 76 directly on YouTube here.

 

Previous Court of Appeal (Civil Division) hearings

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

 

Did you find what you were looking for?