Skip to main content

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

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 19th October 2021

Campbell (by his Litigation Friend) –v- Advantage Insurance Company Ltd

The Claimant appeals, with permission from HHJ Robinson, sitting as High Court Judge in the QBD, his order dated 1 September 2020 giving judgment for the Claimant for 80% of the Claimant’s claim ( making a deduction of 20 % for C’s contributory negligence), following his judgment dated 14 August 2020 in respect of the trial of preliminary issues of liability and causation. Primary liability was admitted.

The claimant appeals the contributory negligence finding and costs consequences of it.

Issue of extent of C’s contributory negligence. C was an unrestrained rear seat passenger in a car driven by D, who was drunk, which was involved in a high speed head on collision with a lorry (on its side of the road). D was killed in the collision. C suffered very severe injuries and is in a minimally conscious state. Both C & D had been drinking heavily prior to the collision.

Judge found C had capacity to decide to consent to be being driven by D & did so consent;

Lower Court Judgment:

Campbell v Advantage Insurance Company Ltd [2020] EWHC 2210 (QB) (14 August 2020) (bailii.org)

 

Tuesday 19th October 2021

Hunt & Walker Preston Sols –v- Annolight Ltd & ors

The Claimant appeals the Order of Mr Justice Saini, dated 18 December 2020, dismissing the Applicant’s appeal (with  permission to appeal having previously been given by Foster J) from the order of  Judge Godsmark QC (`the circuit judge’) made on 22 April 2020, in which the circuit  judge in effect directed the cross-examination of Mr Sarwar of the Applicant’s solicitors firm.

This matter arises from the claim of the Applicant’s former client, a Mr John Hunt, for noise-induced hearing loss. The Respondents to this appeal were the third, fifth and sixth Defendants to that claim. The claim against them was discontinued at the final hearing on 12 December 2019. The circuit judge awarded the Respondents their costs and decided that determination of whether these costs should be enforceable against the claimant and/or payable by the Applicant should be made a further hearing before the circuit judge or his nominee.

The Respondents sought orders that QOCS be disapplied (because of the claimant’s alleged fundamental dishonesty) and that the Applicant pays wasted costs. The Applicant submitted the statement of Mr Sawar who then was cross-examined at the hearing.

The Applicant  appealed on the essential basis that the direction for oral evidence was  contrary to the guidance given by the Court of Appeal in Ridehalgh v Horsefield [1994] Ch 205; and that there would be no purpose to cross- examination because Mr Sarwar could not say more than was in his statement without impugning the claimant’s privilege.

The judge dismissed the appeal on the basis said that the Applicant was no longer acting for the claimant, privilege had likely been waived, and it was clear that  there were radically different accounts given by the claimant and Mr Sarwar; so that whilst it may well be rare to require the attendance of a solicitor, it was difficult to see how the issue could be resolved without oral evidence from Mr Sarwar.

Lower Court Judgment:

Hunt Annolight Ltd & Ors [2020] EWHC 3744 (QB) (18 December 2020) (bailii.org)

 

Tuesday 19th October 2021

Sullivan-v- Bury Street Capital Ltd

This is an appeal by the Claimant against the order of the EAT (Choudhury J) sealed on 6/10/20 dismissing his appeal from the ET’s decision that C was not disabled within the meaning of s. 6 of the Equality Act 2010.

The C was a sales executive with R.

C’s employment was terminated on 8/9/17 ostensibly for reasons to do with capabiltiy and attitude. C filed a claim for unfair dismissal, disability discrimination and deduction of wages.

The ET held that C did not have a disability, but his claim of unfair dismissal was upheld.

The EAT held that the ET did not err in concluding that the long-term requirement in the definition of disability was not met. The ET was entitled to conclude on the evidence that although there was a substantial adverse effect in 2013 and again in 2017, in neither case was it likely that the adverse effect would last for 12 months or that it would recur. The ET had correctly applied “likely” as if it meant “could well happen” and had approached the question of likelihood of recurrence correctly.

The ET also did not err in deciding that R did not know and could not reasonably be expected to know of the disability.

Lower Court Judgment:

Sullivan v Bury Street Capital Ltd (DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION) [2020] UKEAT 0317_19_0909 (09 September 2020) (bailii.org)

 

Tuesday 19th – Wednesday 20th October 2021

Navigator Equities Ltd & anr –v- Deripaska

The claimants appeal against the orders dated 10 June 2020 and 17 July 2020 of Mr. Justice Andrew Baker striking out and dismissing their application that the defendant be committed to prison and seeking an order for damages to be assessed

Background:

The parties were involved in a long-running dispute concerning valuable real property in Central Moscow owned through a joint venture vehicle, Navio Holdings Ltd (Navio). The main issue between them was whether the second claimant, Mr Vladimir Chernukhin, was party to a shareholder agreement relating to Navio that was concluded between Mr Deripaska and his company Filatona Trading Ltd (Filatona), on the one hand, and Ms Lolita Danilina and the first claimant, Navigator Equities Ltd, on the other hand. Mr Chernukhin said that Ms Danilina was acting throughout as his nominee, to the knowledge of Mr Deripaska. An arbitration tribunal decided that issue in favour of Mr Chernukhin. The issue was effectively re-litigated before Teare J at a trial of a challenge to the arbitration award under s.67 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (the Section 67 Proceedings). There were also issues between the parties over the value of Mr Chernukhin’s interest in Navio, if indeed he was the interested party.

By an Application Notice dated 14 November 2019, the claimants applied for an order that the defendant, Mr Oleg Deripaska, be committed to prison or sanctioned in any other manner the court might think appropriate for what they said were contempts of court. Mr Deripaska denied being in contempt of court and by Application Notice dated 18 February 2020 sought to have the contempt application struck out as an abuse of the process of the court.

The suggested contempts of court were breaches, as the claimants said there had been, of an undertaking given by Mr Deripaska to the court in June 2018. The claimants said that undertaking constituted or gave effect to an agreement with them that operated as a binding contract, so that the breaches of the undertaking (if proved) were also breaches of contract sounding in damages. The claimants’ Application Notice sought, effectively by way of summary judgment, an order for damages to be assessed.

Baker J struck out the contempt application and dismissed the damages claim by orders dated 10th June and 17th July 2020, which are now the subject of this appeal.

Lower Court Judgment:

Navigator Equities Ltd & Anor v Deripaska [2020] EWHC 1798 (Comm) (17 July 2020) (bailii.org)

 

Wednesday 20th October 2021

Langer –v- McKeown & anr

The First Respondent Mr McKeown appeals the Order of Mr Nicholas Thompsell (sitting as a High Court Judge) dated 4th February 2021 in which he made an Order that the First Respondent pay the Petitioner’s costs of and occasioned by the petition to be assessed if not agreed and for payment on account of £450.00 by 4pm on 18th February 2021.

Background

This appeal arises out of the costs judgment dated 4.2.21 made following the handing down of the first stage judgment following a trial to determine the liability of Mr John McKeown to Mrs Diana Langer, on a Petition pursuant to Section 994 of the Companies Act 2006 relating to The Stratos Club Limited.

 

Wednesday 20th – Thursday 21st October 2021

Optis Cellular Technology LLC & ors –v- Apple Retail UK Ltd & ors

This is the Defendants’ appeal of the order made by Mr Justice Birss dated 23rd November 2020 in which he gave judgment for the Claimants against the Defendants on issues of patent validity and infringement.  Permission to appeal was granted within the same Order.

This trial (Trial A) is about patent EP (UK) 1 230 818 entitled “Method for improving handovers between mobile communications systems.”.  The patent is part of a portfolio of declared standards essential patents held by the Optis group of which the claimants are each members. Optis contends the patent is valid and essential to versions of standard 3GPP TS 45.008 concerning GSM. The particular aspects relied on are (i) 3GPP TS 45.008 v.5.22.0 relating to enhanced measurement reporting about UMTS cells, (ii) 3GPP TS 45.008 v.8.12.0 relating to enhanced measurement reporting about both UMTS and LTE cells, and (iii) the same 3GPP TS 45.008 v.8.12.0, this time relating to normal measurement reporting about UMTS cells. Aside from essentiality, there is no distinct issue of infringement. If the patent is valid and essential, then it is being infringed by Apple.

Lower Court Judgment:

Optis Cellular Technology LLC & Ors v Apple Retail UK Ltd & Ors (Rev 1) [2020] EWHC 3248 (Pat) (23 November 2020) (bailii.org)

 

Thursday 21st October 2021

Burn –v- Alder Hey Children’s NHS Foundation Trust

The Claimant appeals from the order of Thornton J dated 2/7/21 dismissing her claim for declaratory and injunctive relief in respect of breaches of express or implied terms of her contract of employment.

R’s failure to seek her view on information that should be gathered as part of a disciplinary investigation about her;

R’s refusal to disclose to her in advance of being interviewed as part of the disciplinary investigation three statements obtained as part of a root cause analysis investigation into care of the patient who was the subject of the disciplinary investigation.

The judge held that the C was not entitled to see the RCA statements or letters to and from patient A’s family and there was no breach of the obligation to seek the C’s views on information to be gathered as C had not suggested that the case investigator was not looking at the right material.

C complains that the judge’s interpretation of the R’s Maintaining High Professional Standards Policy (MHPS) was flawed and failed to provide procedural safeguards.

Lower Court Judgment:

Burn v Alder Hey Children’s NHS Foundation Trust [2021] EWHC 1674 (QB) (18 June 2021) (bailii.org)

 

Thursday 21st October 2021

Partington (Executor of the Estate of Nicholas Martin Rossiter) (claimant/resp) –v- Rossiter (def/appellant)

The Defendant/Appellant appeals, with the part permission of HHJ Cadwallader, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, his order of 20 November 2020, whereby he declared that the 13 June 2013 Will means by ‘United Kingdom’ and ‘UK’ the United Kingdom together with Jersey and ordered that the Defendant do pay 80% of the Claimant’s costs partly on the standard basis and partly on the indemnity basis, ordered that the Defendant make an interim payment of costs and that the Claimant is permitted to take his costs out of the deceased’s estate on the indemnity basis.

Permission to appeal was granted by paragraph 4 of the Order on grounds 1 and 2, that is on the questions whether the Judge was wrong to conclude that the words ‘United Kingdom’ in the Will had two ordinary meanings such that they were, for the purpose of sections 21(1)(b) and 21(1)(c) of the Administration of Justice Act 1982, ambiguous on their face, and in the light of admissible evidence and circumstances of the case.

The dispute concerns the interpretation of the Will dated 13 June 2013 made by Nicholas Partin Rossiter. The Claimant, the executor of the deceased, sought rectification of the Will on the basis that it covered the deceased’s assets, valued at about £600,000, located in Jersey. The deceased, Nicholas Rossiter, died domiciled in Russia and his Will dated 13 June 2013 was granted probate out of Manchester District Probate Registry on 11 January 2019. The Defendant was the wife of the deceased.

 

Thursday 21st October 2021

Awodola –v- (claimant/resp) –v- Association of Chartered Certified Accounts (def/appellant)

This is an appeal the Order of HHJ Karen Walden-Smith (sitting as a HCJ) (17/11/20) that ordered:

The reconsideration determination of the Chairman of the Defendant’s Appeal Committee, dated 14 February 2019, refusing the Claimant’s application for permission to appeal the determination of the Disciplinary Committee made on 19 October 2018 is quashed.

The Claimant’s application for reconsideration of the refusal of his application for permission to appeal the determination of the Disciplinary Committee made on 19 October 2018, be considered by the Appeal Committee in accordance with the provisions of the 2018 Rulebook iteration of the Defendant’s Appeal Regulations.

Mr Awodola became a member of the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants (ACCA) on 30 April 2005 and a fellow on 30 April 2010. He was excluded from membership as a consequence of the decision of ACCA’s Disciplinary Committee on 19 October 2018.

Lower Court Judgment:

Awodola v Association of Chartered Certified Accountants [2020] EWHC 3059 (Admin) (17 November 2020) (bailii.org)

 

 

Court 63

Court 70

Court 71

Court 73

Court 74

Court 75

Court 1 Rolls Building

Court 17 Rolls Building

 

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)