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

How and why are court cases being streamed online?

Most cases from the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) are live-streamed on the judiciary’s YouTube channel.
Live-streaming of selected cases began in 2019 to improve public access to, and understanding of, the work of the courts. We are working towards making it possible for all appropriate cases to be live streamed.

The Court of Appeal (Civil Division) is currently operating a pilot scheme to allow access to the parties’ skeleton arguments, on a limited number of selected case that are being live streamed.  Please note that the only documents available are those attached on this page. Although you are welcome to view these documents, the re-use, re-editing or redistribution of these documents is not permitted.  You should be aware that any such use could attract liability for breach of copyright or defamation. Authorisation to reproduce material from these documents must be obtained from the copyright holders concerned.

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

Wednesday 30 April 2025

East Riding of Yorkshire Council as administrating authority of the East Riding Pension Fund (appellant) v KMG SICAV-SIF-GB Strategic Land Fund (respondent)

By Appellant’s Notice submitted on 20 December 2024, the East Riding of Yorkshire Council as administrating authority of the East Riding Pension Fund, petitioner below, appeal the decision of Smith J, sitting in the Business and Property Courts, Insolvency and Companies Court, dated 8 November 2024 dismissing the appeal against the order of ICC Judge Kyriakides dated 10 May 2024 by which she dismissed a petition dated 13 May 2021 (as amended on 31 July 2023) presented by the Appellant, East Riding of Yorkshire Council as Administrating Authority of the East Riding Pension Fund. The Petition sought the compulsory winding-up of KMG SICAV-GB Strategic Land Fund (formerly known as KMG SICAV-SIF-Lucent Land Fund) as an unregistered company pursuant to ss.220-221 of the Insolvency Act 1986.

Wednesday 30 April 2024

Transport Action Network Ltd (claimant/appellant) v Secretary of State for Transport (defendant/respondent)

By Appellant’s Notice submitted on 8 July 2024, the claimant below, appeals the decision of Kerr J, sitting in the Administrative and Planning Courts, dated 11 June 2024, whereby he dismissed the judicial review claim.

The Appellant challenged a decision of the Respondent to reduce funding for investment in “active travel” schemes, i.e. schemes to promote walking and cycling.

Link to lower court judgment

Appellant Skeleton Argument

Respondent Skeleton Argument

Wednesday 30 April – Thursday 1 May 2025

Marlborough DP Ltd (appellant) v HM Revenue and Customs (respondent)

By Appellant’s Notice filed on 2 July 2024, the Appellant (respondent below) Marlborough DP Ltd, appeals in part the decision of Mr Justice Edward Johnson and Judge Guy Brannan, sitting in the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber), with judgment delivered on 16 April 2024.

Dr Thomas is a dentist and, at all times material to this appeal, carried on a dental practice through his wholly-owned company, Marlborough DP Limited (“MDPL”), the Appellant (Respondent below) MDPL entered into a tax avoidance scheme under which it made payments through certain trust arrangements, which were then paid to Dr Thomas by way of loans. Essentially, the objective of the scheme was that MDPL would obtain a corporation tax deduction for the payments it made, and that Dr Thomas would not pay income tax on the amounts that he received by way of loans. It is common ground that the tax avoidance scheme was not effective.
The question to be considered broadly is to the correct tax treatment, for both income and corporation tax purposes, of the various payments that were made.

Wednesday 30 April – Thursday 1 May 2025

Great Jackson St Estates Ltd (appellant) v The Council of the City of Manchester (respondent)

By Appellant’s Notice issued on 9 February 2024, the Appellant Great Jackson Street Estates Limited, appeals the decision of the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).

The appellant is a developer who holds the lease for the property in question, which consists of two warehouses that are currently vacant. The respondent (objector below), the Council of the City of Manchester (“The Council”) holds the freehold of those properties.
The wider area in which the properties are situated has been the subject of development under the auspices of a development plan. A number of other developers in the same area have liaised with the council to undertake similar developments as that proposed by the appellant, namely the building of and change of use to residential and some commercial properties. There were a number of problems faced by the appellant, one of which being restrictive covenants on the property, which the applicant sought to vary/discharge under s.84 Law of Property Act 1925.
The application was made on three grounds – obsolescence, limited benefit and no injury to the council. The Tribunal rejected all three in its decision dated 8 August 2023.
The applicant therefore appeals against the decision to refuse modification on the limited benefit ground in s.84(1)(aa) only, as well as the costs decision that flowed from the UT’s decision.

Thursday 1 May 2025

The Manchester Ship Canal Company Ltd (claimant/appellant) v The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs & anr (defendants/respondents)

By Appellant’s Notice submitted on 23 January 2023, this is an appeal against the decision of Mrs Justice Thornton, sitting in the administrative and Planning Court, dated 19 December 2022..

The Appellant, the owner, statutory undertaker and navigation authority for the Manchester Ship Canal, challenged the 1st Respondent’s decision to confirm the United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Wastewater Treatment Works) Compulsory Purchase Order 2016 (CPO). The CPO authorises the sewerage undertaker for the North West of England, the 2nd Respondent, to compulsorily discharge water, soil and effluent from its sewers into the Manchester Ship Canal. The challenge is brought pursuant to section 23 Acquisition of Land Act 1981, which provides that a person aggrieved by a compulsory purchase order can apply to the court to question the validity of the order on the ground that there was no power to make it, or a relevant requirement has not been complied with.

The claim was dismissed, the judge finding that the terms of the Order struck a fair balance.

Thursday 1 May 2025

Zaun Ltd (defendant/appellant) v Praesidiad Holding BVBA & anr (claimants/respondents)

By an Appellant’s Notice filed on 8 August 2024, this is an appeal against the Order, dated 13 June 2024 of Mr Justice Zacaroli sitting as a High Court Judge in the Business and Property Courts (ChD) Patents Court in which the Judge struck out the Defendant’s Counterclaim and made a costs order against the Defendant.

Thursday 1 May 2025

Impact Contracting Solutions Ltd (appellant) v HM Revenue and Customs (respondent)

By appellant’s notice filed on 25 October 2023, , the tax payer appellant appeals the decision of Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) dated 1 September 2023, whereby they dismissed their appeal from a decision of the First Tier Tribunal on a preliminary issue regarding liability for VAT fraud.

Court 4

Court 63

Court 67

Court 68

Court 69

Court 70

Court 71

Court 72

Court 73

Court 74

Court 75

Court 1 Rolls Building

Court 17 Rolls Building

External links

UK Judiciary YouTube Channel (external link)