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 25 January 2022

DK -v- Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs (defendant/appellant) & anr

HMRC appeal against the Order of Bourne J dated 5 July 2021. PTA was granted by Bourne J by his Order (5 July 2021).

Factual Background: DK challenged HMRC’s decision to reject his backdated claim for child tax credit made following the success of his asylum claim. The issue before Bourne J was whether, as the HMRC contended, the claim is lawfully barred by Article 7 of the Welfare Reform Act 2012 (Commencement No. 23 and Transitional and Transitory Provisions) Order 2015 (SI 2015/634) (`Order 23′).


Tuesday 25 January 2022

CN (claimant/appellant) -v- The Secretary of State for Health & Social Care & anr

Appeal against the Order of Stacey J (22/4/21) that refused an application for permission to apply for judicial review.

The Appellant sought to challenge his non-inclusion in the English Infected Blood Support Scheme (EIBSS) and the failure to expand that scheme to include victims of chronic Hepatitis B virus by way of judicial review on three grounds. Firstly, discrimination contrary to Article 14 combined with Article 8 and Article 1 Protocol 1 (A1P1) concerning property rights; secondly, s.15 of the Equality Act 2010, discrimination arising from disability and, thirdly, unreasonableness.


Tuesday 25 – Thursday 27 January 2022

Skatteforvaltningen (The Danish Customs & Tax Administration) (claimant/appellant) v Solo Capital Partners LLP (in special administration) & ors

The Appellant/Claimant seeks permission to appeal from the Order Baker J, dated 6 May 2021.

The Appellant/Claimant is the Danish national tax authority (not a separate legal person from the Kingdom of Denmark). It claims to have been induced by misrepresentations, over a three-year period from August 2012 to July 2015, to pay out as tax refunds it was not liable to pay, over DKK12.5 billion (c.#1.5 billion), 90% or more of which in the second half of that period, from March 2014 to the Respondents/Defendants.


Tuesday 25 January 2022

AM (Belarus) -v- The Secretary of State for the Home Department (respondent/appellant)

The SSHD appeals the Order of Lane J. of 27 January 2021 by which he allowed AM’s judicial review claim on Ground 1 and made a declaration that continuing to refuse to grant the Appellant leave to remain in the UK is a disproportionate interference with his Article 8 rights.

AM claims to be a national of Belarus and to be at risk due to his political opinion. AM has made a number of unsuccessful Asylum claims. He was not found to be credible. The SSHD attempted to return AM to Belarus but he was refused entry. The Belarusian authorities refused to issue travel documents. AM has admitted giving false information in previous asylum claims and to the Belarusian authorities. AM has a number of convictions including for violence. He applied for leave to remain as a stateless person on 09 February 2017, which application was refused on 27 November 2019.

By the date of the UT hearing, the Appellant had been subject to temporary admission/bail/immigration detention for 7360 days excluding periods of imprisonment. This amounts to a period of over 20 years, which was said by his representatives to be the longest use of such powers by the Respondent by a substantial margin.

As he has no right to work, the Appellant has been destitute, including periods of street homelessness. There is some medical evidence that the Appellant’s physical and mental health would be adversely affected if he were not given any legal status but that he could reform if granted leave.

The UT found that it was not impossible to remove the Appellant in a Khadir sense. The UT applied the four stage test in RA (Iraq) and found (1) that the Appellant was in actual limbo, (2) the prospects of removal are remote, (3) the Appellant has spent a very long period in Limbo but has committed serious criminal offences, and (4) the public interest is not extinguished but a grant of leave is unlikely to encourage others to follow his example. Although the Appellant could not meet the suitability requirements of paragraph 276ADE, he is entitled to point to his 20 years continuous life in the UK as representing a material Article 8 private life factor. The possibility of self improvement if granted leave and the Appellant’s health were taken into account. AM has had at best precarious status and, though he can speak English, the Appellant is not financially independent. The UT concluded (at paragraph 148) that the public interest is weakened to the point where it is capable of being outweighed by the Appellant’s Article 8 case.

The second ground for JR related to the Appellant’s Statelessness claim. Permission was granted but the claim was dismissed.


Wednesday 26 January 2022

Hussain (claimant/appellant) -v- The Secretary of State for the Home Department

GA (Ethiopia) (claimant/appellant) -v- The Secretary of State for the Home Department

Hussain  – Second Appeal. National of Pakistan. Application for permission to appeal the decision of UTJ Hanson promulgated on 27 May 2020 upholding the decision of FTTJ Bart-Stewart dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the SSHD’s decision to refuse the applicant’s application for a residence card confirming his right to reside in the UK as an extended family member of his uncle an EEA national exercising treaty rights in the UK.

The application was refused on the basis that the applicant failed to provide adequate evidence that he was dependant on his uncle and or residing with him prior to entering the UK and since he entered the UK.

GA (Ethiopia) – Second appeal. National of Ethiopia. Refusal of asylum. Risk as member of Ethiopian opposition group PG7.

The FTT dismissed the appeal on credibility grounds and found there had been a durable change since the country guidance in MBA (post).

The UT dealt with the error of law determination on the papers on the basis that the solicitors had only asked for an oral hearing on the re-making decision. It dismissed the appeal for no error of law. The FTT had been correct to find that the evidence before it showed durable change since the country guidance in MBA (OLF & MTA – risk) Ethiopia such that the applicant would not be at risk.


Wednesday 26 January 2022

Minott (claimant/appellant) -v- Cambridge City Council

Application for permission to appeal the Order of HHJ Lickley QC (sitting as a DHCJ) (8/2/21) that dismissed the claim for judicial review.

The Appellant sought to challenge the decision of the council to refuse to accept a fresh homelessness application following an alleged change in circumstances.


Wednesday 26 – Thursday 27 January 2022

Villiers -v- Villiers

The Wife appeals Mostyn J’s order dated 18 March 2021 dismissing the Wife’s application dated 13 January 2015 under s27 Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 for maintenance.

The Judge also dismissed the Wife’s judgment summons dated 15 August 2020 to enforce an interim maintenance order made by Parker J dated 8 July 2016. He made no order as to costs of either. He discharged paragraphs 6 & 7 of Parker J’s order such that the Husband is not obliged to pay any arrears under the interim order.

Long running litigation. Wife’s English divorce petition dismissed by consent on 16 January 2015. Wife’s s27 MCA 1973 application was based on her habitual residence to found jurisdiction.Husband issued Scottish divorce proceedings in October 2014.


Thursday 27 January 2022

Mercer -v- Alternative Future Group Ltd & ors

The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy appeals from the order of the Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) (Choudhury J) sealed on 4/6/21 allowing the appeal by the Claimant against the Employment Tribunal’s (ET) decision that C’s claim of unlawful detriment on trade union grounds under s.146 TULR(C))A 1992 for having been disciplined in strike action should be rejected.

The case raises an important issue as to whether the right to freedom of association under Art 11 ECHR precludes an employer from taking detrimental action against workers who go on strike.

The EAT found that s.146 of the 1992 Act, as interpreted by domestic law, permitted action to be taken against such workers but thereby provided insufficient protection to striking workers to ensure compliance with Art 11.

The EAT went on to read down s.146 under s. 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 so as to provide for a new prohibition on employers taking any detrimental action against workers participating in industrial action.

The Secretary of State submits that the EAT erred in law in that the limited protection provided by s. 146 ,read with other protections to striking workers, is compatible with Art 11, striking a fair balance between the rights of employers and workers.

Thursday 27 January 2022

Regency Factors PLC (appellant) -v- Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

Regency Factors PLC (`Regency’), seeks permission to appeal the Upper Tribunal order of Bacon J and Cannan J dated 14 December 2020 by which the UT dismissed its appeal against the decision of the First Tier Tribunal.

Regency provides a factoring service to its client and in consideration for that service it is paid certain fees. VAT invoices for those fees are issued to clients when the invoices are assigned to Regency for collection. Regency contends that it is entitled to bad debt relief on the VAT element of the fees that were unpaid by its client.

HMRC rejected claims to Bad Debt Relief made by Regency on its VAT returns for various accounting periods between July 2007 and January 2010, claiming that Regency was not entitled to bad debt relief because the consideration for the supply was received by Regency and there was no bad debt to write off. Further, that Regency did not in any event comply with the requirements of Regulation 168 of the VAT Regulations 1995.

The First Tier Tribunal dismissed Regency’s appeal against HMRC’s VAT assessments on 28 February 2019. With permission, Regency appealed to the UT. The UT considered that the FTT was wrong to find that consideration for the supplies was received by Regency at the time it made the Initial Advance to its client but dismissed the appeal on the basis that the company did not keep its records in a single account which is required by Regulation 168(3) of the VAT regulations 1995 (SI 1995/2518).



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)