header-logo header-logo

14 November 2018
Issue: 7817 / Categories: Legal News , Procedure & practice , Technology
printer mail-detail

Courting a bigger audience: live-streaming from the Supreme Court

The Court of Appeal (Civil Division) followed in the footsteps of the Supreme Court this week by live-streaming its judgments.

A dispute over Premier League football club West Ham United’s use of the stadium that was built for the 2012 London Olympics, heard in Court 71 before the Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Lewison and Lady Justice Asplin, made legal history as the first Court of Appeal hearing to be live-streamed in full. WH Holding Ltd v E20 Stadium concerns the seating capacity that should be made available to the London club for home fixtures at what is now known as the London Stadium in Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park.

Sir Terence Etherton, Master of the Rolls, said: ‘The first case is a high profile one with a great deal of public interest, which is why it has been selected for the public pilot.

‘The intention is to have up to three appeal hearings being live-streamed in the near future, assuming that all works well with the public pilot. We hope that as well as opening up the court’s work to a mass audience, the broadcasts will increase public confidence in the system.’

The live streaming will be available through the judiciary website, www.judiciary.uk. Supreme Court cases have been live-streamed since 2009. The media have been allowed to film and broadcast certain selected Court of Appeal hearings only since 2013.

The court will select cases for live-streaming. Viewers see a split screen, one half showing the judicial bench and the other showing the front rows of counsel.

If the pilot runs smoothly, Sir Terence will seek to extend live-streaming to family appeals, where broadcasting is currently prohibited.

Issue: 7817 / Categories: Legal News , Procedure & practice , Technology
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll