Court of Appeal (England and Wales)

Last updated

The Court of Appeal
Royal courts of justice.jpg
Established1 November 1875 [1]
LocationRoyal Courts of Justice, Strand, City of Westminster, London, UK
Authorized by
Appeals to
Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales
Currently The Lord Burnett of Maldon
Since2 October 2017
Master of the Rolls
Currently Sir Geoffrey Vos
Since11 January 2021

The Court of Appeal (formally "Her Majesty's Court of Appeal in England", [2] commonly cited as "CA", "EWCA" or "CoA") is the highest court within the Senior Courts of England and Wales, and second in the legal system of England and Wales only to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. [3] The Court of Appeal was created in 1875, [4] and today comprises 39 Lord Justices of Appeal and Lady Justices of Appeal. [4]


The court has two divisions, Criminal and Civil, led by the Lord Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls and Records of the Chancery of England respectively. Criminal appeals are heard in the Criminal Division, and civil appeals in the Civil Division. The Criminal Division hears appeals from the Crown Court, while the Civil Division hears appeals from the County Court, High Court of Justice and Family Court. Permission to appeal is normally required from either the lower court or the Court of Appeal itself; and with permission, further appeal may lie to the Supreme Court.

The Court of Appeal deals only with appeals from other courts or tribunals. The Court of Appeal consists of two divisions: the Civil Division hears appeals from the High Court and the County Court and certain superior tribunals, while the Criminal Division may only hear appeals from the Crown Court connected with a trial on indictment (i.e., for a serious offence). Its decisions are binding on all courts, including itself, apart from the Supreme Court.


Formation and early history

The appeal system before 1875 was "chaotic". The superior courts system consisted of 12 different courts, with appeal on common law matters to the Court of Exchequer Chamber, chancery matters to the Court of Appeal in Chancery and other matters to the Privy Council. This was the subject of a review by the Judicature Commission, established in 1867 to consider the creation of a "Supreme Court" (a High Court and Court of Appeal). The result was published in 1869. The recommendation was that there should be a common system of appeal from all of the High Court divisions, with a limited set of appeals allowed to the House of Lords. [5] This reform was implemented by the Judicature Acts, with the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876 giving an almost limitless right of appeal to the Lords. [6]

The new legal structure provided a single Court of Appeal, which heard appeals from all the various divisions of the new unified High Court of Justice. It only heard civil cases: opportunities for appealing in criminal cases remained limited until the 20th century. [7] In its early days, the Court of Appeal divided its sittings between Westminster Hall for appeals from the Common Law divisions, and Lincoln's Inn for Chancery, Probate, Divorce and Admiralty appeals, with five Lords Justices. After the opening of the Royal Courts of Justice in 1882 the Court of Appeal transferred there, where it remains. As well as the Lords Justices, the Lord Chancellor, any previous Lords Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice, the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, the Vice-Chancellor of the Chancery Division and the Master of the Rolls could also hear cases, although in practice only the Master of the Rolls did so. [8]

Changes in appellate jurisdiction and procedure

The absence of limits on appeals to the House of Lords was the cause of much concern: it led to an additional set of expensive and time-consuming appeals from the Court of Appeal, which thus could not take decisions in the knowledge that they were final. The appeals from the county courts were seen similarly, involving an appeal to the High Court of Justice and the bypassing of the Court of Appeal for a second set of appeals to the Lords. The Administration of Justice (Appeals) Act 1934, a short statute, solved both problems neatly by abolishing the appeal of county court decisions to the High Court and instead sending them automatically to the Court of Appeal, and by establishing that appeals to the Lords could only take place with the consent of the Court of Appeal or of the Lords themselves. [9]

A second set of reforms to the appeals system followed the report of the Evershed Committee on High Court Procedure in 1953, which recognised the high cost to the litigants of an additional set of appeals, particularly since the loser in a civil case paid the victor's legal bills. Among the few changes that were made, the practice ceased of counsel reading out the judgment, cross-examinations, documents and evidence given in the lower court; this saved time and costs. The process of "leapfrogging" (appealing from the High Court to the House of Lords without needing to go through the Court of Appeal), which the committee had recommended, was eventually brought into force with the Administration of Justice Act 1969. [10]

A separate Court of Criminal Appeal had been established in 1908. In 1966 this was merged with its older namesake, establishing the present-day structure of a single Court of Appeal with two Divisions: Civil and Criminal. [7]

In the early 1960s there was discussion between judges and academics in the United Kingdom and the United States comparing the processes of appeal used in each nation. Although the British judges found the emphasis on written arguments unattractive, they did like the idea of pre-reading: that the court should read the pleadings of counsel, the case being appealed and the judgment from the lower court before delivering its judgment. But the idea was quietly scrapped, despite a successful tryout in the Court of Appeal. The court over which Lord Denning presided from 1962 to 1982 was under no pressure and had no inclination to modernise, with liaisons and management[ clarification needed ] handled by clerks with little knowledge.[ clarification needed ] This changed in 1981 with the appointment of a Registrar, John Adams, an academic and lawyer, who significantly reformed the internal workings of the Court. [11]

The Woolf and Bowman reforms

In July 1996, Lord Woolf published Access to Justice, a report on the accessibility of the courts to the public. Woolf identified civil litigation as being characterised by excessive cost, delay and complexity, and succeeded in replacing the diverse rules with a single set of Civil Procedure Rules. [12] Before Woolf had even published his final report, Sir Jeffery Bowman, the recently retired senior partner of PriceWaterhouse, was commissioned to write a report on the Civil Division of the Court of Appeal. Bowman noted a growing workload and delays, with 14 months between setting down and disposing of a case in 70% of cases, the rest taking even longer than that – some had taken five years. [13] He recommended extending the requirement to ask leave to appeal to almost all appeal cases; allowing certain appeals to be heard at a lower level; focusing of procedure; imposition of time limits on oral arguments; and the use of judicial time more towards reading and less towards sitting in court. [14]

Bowman's recommendations were mainly enacted through statutory provisions, such as Part IV of the Access to Justice Act 1999. In Tanfern Ltd v Cameron-MacDonald [2000] 1 WLR 1311, Brooke LJ laid down the procedural methods of the Court of Appeal post-Woolf and Bowman. With a few exceptions, such as cases where "the liberty of the subject" is an issue, permission is required to appeal, and may be granted either by the lower court or by the Court of Appeal. [15] As a general rule, appeals are now limited to a review of the decision of the lower court, only allowing a full appeal where there was a serious procedural irregularity or the decision was wrong through "blatant error". [16]


Civil Division

The Civil Division deals with all non-criminal cases, and has been part of the court since its establishment in 1875. The Civil Division is bound by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom when making decisions, and is normally bound by its own previous decisions, with four exceptions:[ citation needed ]

The first three were established by the case of Young v Bristol Aeroplane Co Ltd in 1946, the fourth by R (on the application of Kadhim) v Brent London Borough Housing Benefit Review Board in 2001. [17] The Civil Division is led by the Master of the Rolls, currently Sir Geoffrey Vos (who is entitled to the post-nominal MR), assisted by the Vice-President of the Civil Division, Sir Nicholas Underhill. The division hears cases from the High Court of Justice, the County Court and several tribunals. [18]

Although the Lord Chief Justice is senior to the Master of the Rolls, the Civil Division is much broader in scope than the Criminal Division. With only three judges on the bench (rather than five or more in the Supreme Court), this allows the Master of the Rolls huge opportunity for shaping the common law and, most notably, Lord Denning made the most of this potential.[ citation needed ]

Criminal Division

The Criminal Division was established in 1966 with the merger of the Court of Criminal Appeal into the Court of Appeal. It hears all appeals from the Crown Court which are in connection with a trial on indictment (i.e. with a jury) and where the Crown Court has sentenced a defendant committed from the Magistrates' Court. It also exercises the jurisdiction to order the issue of writs of venire de novo . [19] The Criminal Division, while bound by the Supreme Court, is more flexible with binding itself, due to the heightened stakes in a case where a possible penalty is a prison sentence. [20] The Division is led by the Lord Chief Justice, currently Lord Burnett of Maldon, assisted by the Vice-President of the Criminal Division, currently Lord Justice Fulford. [21]

Procedure for appeal

Sections 54 to 59 of the Access to Justice Act 1999 and Part 52 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 came into force on 2 May 2000, and created one universal appeals system; not all of these are to the Court of Appeal, with the principle used that an appeal should go to the next highest court in the hierarchy. [22] Appeals are allowed if the decision in the court below was incorrect, or suffered from a serious procedural error or irregularity. [23]

Almost all appeals require permission, a major innovation from the previous system, where appeals were, on the request of counsel, almost all automatically put through. The application for permission should be made to the lower court, although this is not mandatory; it may be asked of the appellate court itself. In Re T (A Child) [2002] EWCA Civ 1736, the Civil Division strongly advised that counsel apply at the lower courts, since the judge, fully aware of the facts, will take less time to process, there is no harm if the application fails or if it is approved but counsel decides not to proceed with the case and there are no additional costs involved. The only problem here is that judgments may occasionally be reserved, and only given later by post – there may not be an opportunity to ask for permission to appeal at the lower court. [24]

The Court of Appeal, when considering an application for appeal, may decide based on the paper documents or refer the case to an oral hearing, something often done when it is apparent that a refusal of the written case will lead the applicant to send a second, oral application. If a written application is refused, the applicant may ask for an oral hearing to discuss the refusal. Under the Civil Procedure Rules 1998, the appeal must have "a real prospect of success", or there must be "some other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard" for it to be accepted. [25]

Under certain, limited, circumstances, second appeals are allowed. This is when an appeal goes to the High Court or the County Court and a party to the case wishes to appeal it further, to the Court of Appeal. Section 55(1) of the Access to Justice Act 1999 says that, when an appeal is made to the County Court or the High Court and that court makes a decision, no further appeal is allowed to the Court of Appeal unless the Court considers that the case raises "an important point of principle or practice" or "there is some other compelling reason for the Court of Appeal to hear it". [26] In Tanfern Ltd v Cameron-MacDonald [2000] 1 WLR 1311 the Court commented on this limitation of second appeals, pointing out that the Lords Justices of Appeal were a valuable and scarce resource – it was necessary to impose limitations on appeals to prevent the Court and its judges becoming overburdened. [27]

There are two sorts of hearings that the Court of Appeal can hold; reviews, and full rehearings. Section 52.11(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 establishes that appeals should always be reviews, unless there are individual circumstances that, "in the interest of justice", make a rehearing necessary. [28] In its case law, the Court has emphasised that it is up to the individual panel of judges to decide whether to hold a review or rehearing, with the circumstances of the case playing a large part. [23] In 2004 the Court heard 1,059 appeals, of which 295 were allowed and 413 directly dismissed. [29]


The Court of Appeal's main judges are the Lord Justices of Appeal and Lady Justices of Appeal. The Senior Courts Act 1981 provides that the Court of Appeal comprises 39 ordinary sitting Lords and Lady Justices and the Lord Chief Justice, Master of the Rolls, President of the Queen's Bench Division, President of the Family Division, and Chancellor of the High Court. [30] Retired Lords and Lady Justices sometimes sit in cases, as have retired Law Lords, and High Court judges are allowed to sit on occasion and there are a number of Senior Circuit Judges authorised to sit as judges of the Criminal Division.

Lords and Lady Justices have, since 1946, been drawn exclusively from the High Court of Justice; prior to this, Lords Justices were sometimes recruited directly from the Bar. [31] Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss was the first woman appointed as a Lord Justice of Appeal in 1988; she was known officially as "Lord Justice" until a practice direction was issued in 1994 to refer to her informally as "Lady Justice", and the official title in section 3 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 was amended by the Courts Act 2003. Dame Kathryn Thirlwall was the twelfth Lady Justice, appointed in 2017, bringing the number of active Lady Justices to 9 out of 39.

The division of work in the Court of Appeal is demonstrated by the 2005 statistics, in which Lords and Lady Justices sat 66% of the time, High Court Judges 26% of the time and Circuit and Deputy High Court Judges 8 per cent of the time. [32] Lord and Lady Justices are currently paid £188,900, with the Master of the Rolls paid £205,700 and the Lord Chief Justice £230,400. [33]

The Civil Division is led by the Master of the Rolls, currently Sir Geoffrey Vos; the Chancellor of the High Court and President of the Family Division regularly, for a period of weeks, lead the Civil Division. Several Civil Division Lords Justices are seconded to the Criminal Division, which is currently led by the Lord Chief Justice, the Lord Burnett of Maldon. [34]


On 31 October 2013 the Court of Appeal allowed cameras in the court for a (70-second broadcast delay) "live" broadcast feed for the first time. [35] Cameras were banned in all courts in 1925 (although they were allowed in the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom from its 2009 inception). Cameras have now been allowed in some courts due to changes made by the Crime and Courts Act 2013. In 2013, only one court could be broadcast per day. [36]

See also

Judiciary of England and Wales

Courts of England and Wales

Related Research Articles

Judicial functions of the House of Lords Historical judicial role of the UK House of Lords

Whilst the House of Lords of the United Kingdom is the upper chamber of Parliament and has government ministers, it for many centuries had a judicial function. It functioned as a court of first instance for the trials of peers, for impeachments, and as a court of last resort in the United Kingdom and prior, the Kingdom of England.

Court of Chancery Court of equity in England and Wales

The Court of Chancery was a court of equity in England and Wales that followed a set of loose rules to avoid the slow pace of change and possible harshness of the common law. The Chancery had jurisdiction over all matters of equity, including trusts, land law, the estates of lunatics and the guardianship of infants. Its initial role was somewhat different: as an extension of the lord chancellor's role as Keeper of the King's Conscience, the court was an administrative body primarily concerned with conscientious law. Thus the Court of Chancery had a far greater remit than the common law courts, whose decisions it had the jurisdiction to overrule for much of its existence, and was far more flexible. Until the 19th century, the Court of Chancery could apply a far wider range of remedies than common law courts, such as specific performance and injunctions, and had some power to grant damages in special circumstances. With the shift of the Exchequer of Pleas towards a common law court and loss of its equitable jurisdiction by the Administration of Justice Act 1841, the Chancery became the only national equitable body in the English legal system.

The courts of England and Wales, supported administratively by Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service, are the civil and criminal courts responsible for the administration of justice in England and Wales.

In common law systems, a superior court is a court of general jurisdiction over civil and criminal legal cases. A superior court is "superior" in relation to a court with limited jurisdiction, which is restricted to civil cases involving monetary amounts with a specific limit, or criminal cases involving offenses of a less serious nature. A superior court may hear appeals from lower courts. For courts of general jurisdiction in civil law system, see Ordinary court.

Court of Session Supreme civil court of Scotland

The Court of Session is the supreme civil court of Scotland and constitutes part of the College of Justice; the supreme criminal court of Scotland is the High Court of Justiciary. The Court of Session sits in Parliament House in Edinburgh and is both a trial court and a court of appeal. Decisions of the court can be appealed to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, with the permission of either the Inner House or the Supreme Court. The Court of Session and the local sheriff courts of Scotland have concurrent jurisdiction for all cases with a monetary value in excess of £100,000; the plaintiff is given first choice of court. However, the majority of complex, important, or high value cases are brought in the Court of Session. Cases can be remitted to the Court of Session from the sheriff courts, including the Sheriff Personal Injury Court, at the request of the presiding sheriff. Legal aid, administered by the Scottish Legal Aid Board, is available to persons with little disposable income for cases in the Court of Session.

High Court of Justiciary Supreme criminal court in Scotland

The High Court of Justiciary is the supreme criminal court in Scotland. The High Court is both a trial court and a court of appeal. As a trial court, the High Court sits on circuit at Parliament House or in the adjacent former Sheriff Court building in the Old Town in Edinburgh, or in dedicated buildings in Glasgow and Aberdeen. The High Court sometimes sits in various smaller towns in Scotland, where it uses the local sheriff court building. As an appeal court, the High Court sits only in Edinburgh. On one occasion the High Court of Justiciary sat outside Scotland, at Zeist in the Netherlands during the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing trial, as the Scottish Court in the Netherlands. At Zeist the High Court sat both as a trial court, and an appeal court for the initial appeal by Abdelbaset al-Megrahi.

Queens Bench Name of superior courts in a number of jurisdictions

The Queen's Bench ; or, during the reign of a male monarch, the King's Bench, is the superior court in a number of jurisdictions within some of the Commonwealth realms. The original King's Bench, founded in 1215 in England, was one of the ancient courts of the land and is now a division of the High Court of Justice of England and Wales. In the Commonwealth, the term Queen-on-the-Bench, or King-on-the-Bench is a title sometimes used to refer to the monarch in their ceremonial role within the justice system, as the fount of justice in that justice is carried out in their name.

Courts of Scotland Administration of justice in Scotland

The courts of Scotland are responsible for administration of justice in Scotland, under statutory, common law and equitable provisions within Scots law. The courts are presided over by the judiciary of Scotland, who are the various judicial office holders responsible for issuing judgments, ensuring fair trials, and deciding on sentencing. The Court of Session is the supreme civil court of Scotland, subject to appeals to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, and the High Court of Justiciary is the supreme criminal court, which is only subject to the authority of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom on devolution issues and human rights compatibility issues.

Supreme Court of the United Kingdom Final court of appeal in the United Kingdom

The Supreme Court is the final court of appeal in the United Kingdom for all civil cases, and for criminal cases originating in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. It also hears cases of the greatest public or constitutional importance affecting the whole population.

The High Court of Ireland is a court which deals at first instance with the most serious and important civil and criminal cases. When sitting as a criminal court it is called the Central Criminal Court and sits with judge and jury. It also acts as a court of appeal for civil cases in the Circuit Court. It also has the power to determine whether or not a law is constitutional, and of judicial review over acts of the government and other public bodies.

The courts of Northern Ireland are the civil and criminal courts responsible for the administration of justice in Northern Ireland: they are constituted and governed by the law of Northern Ireland.

Inner House Senior Scottish court

The Inner House is the senior part of the Court of Session, the supreme civil court in Scotland; the Outer House forms the junior part of the Court of Session. It is a court of appeal and a court of first instance. The chief justice is the Lord President, with their deputy being the Lord Justice Clerk, and judges of the Inner House are styled Senators of the College of Justice or Lords of Council and Session. Criminal appeals in Scotland are handled by the High Court of Justiciary sitting as the Court of Appeal.

Court of Appeal judge (England and Wales) Ordinary judge of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales

A Lord Justice of Appeal or Lady Justice of Appeal is a judge of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales, the court that hears appeals from the High Court of Justice, the Crown Court and other courts and tribunals. A Lord Justice of Appeal is the second highest level of judge in the courts of England and Wales. Despite the title, and unlike the former Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, they are not peers.

Judiciary of England and Wales

There are various levels of judiciary in England and Wales — different types of courts have different styles of judges. They also form a strict hierarchy of importance, in line with the order of the courts in which they sit, so that judges of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales are generally given more weight than district judges sitting in county courts and magistrates' courts. On 1 April 2020 there were 3,174 judges in post in England and Wales. Some judges with United Kingdom-wide jurisdiction also sit in England and Wales, particularly Justices of the United Kingdom Supreme Court and members of the tribunals judiciary.

The Court of Appeal in Chancery was created in 1851 to hear appeals of decisions and decrees made in the Chancery Court. The appeals in the court were heard by the Lord Chancellor alone, or as a tripartite panel. Cases here could be further appealed to the House of Lords.

Court of Chancery (Ireland)

The Court of Chancery was a court which exercised equitable jurisdiction in Ireland until its abolition as part of the reform of the court system in 1877. It was the court in which the Lord Chancellor of Ireland presided. Its final sitting place was at the Four Courts in Dublin, which still stands.

Michael Briggs, Lord Briggs of Westbourne British judge

Michael Townley Featherstone Briggs, Lord Briggs of Westbourne, is a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. He served earlier as a judge of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales. By Royal Warrant, he bears the courtesy title of Lord Briggs of Westbourne.

Judges Council

The Judges' Council is a body in England and Wales that, representing the judiciary, advises the Lord Chief Justice on judicial matters. It has its historical roots in the original Council of the Judges of the Supreme Court, created by the Judicature Act 1873 to oversee the new Supreme Court of Judicature. This body initially met regularly, reforming the procedure used by the circuit courts, and the new High Court of Justice but met less regularly as time went on, meeting only twice between 1900 and 1907, with a gap of ten years between meetings in 1940 and 1950 respectively. After relative inactivity, it was eventually wound up through the Supreme Court Act 1981, which contained no provisions for its continued existence, something Denis Dobson attributes to newer bodies which performed the duties the Council had originally been created to do.

High Court of Justice One of the Senior Courts of England and Wales

The High Court of Justice in London, known properly as Her Majesty's High Court of Justice in England, together with the Court of Appeal and the Crown Court, are the Senior Courts of England and Wales. Its name is abbreviated as EWHC for legal citation purposes.

Justices of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom are the judges of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom other than the president and the deputy president. The Supreme Court is the highest court of the United Kingdom for civil and criminal matters in the jurisdictions of England and Wales and Northern Ireland. Judges are appointed by the Queen on the advice of the Prime Minister, who receives recommendations from a selection commission. The number of judges is set by s.23(2) Constitutional Reform Act 2005, which established the Court, but may be increased by the Queen through an Order in Council under s.23(3). There are currently 12 positions: one President, one Deputy President, and 10 Justices. Judges of the Court who are not already peers are granted the style Lord or Lady followed by a surname, territorial designation or a combination of both, for life.


  1. Wilson, Arthur (1875). The Supreme Court of Judicature Acts, 1873 and 1875. London: Stevens and Sons. Retrieved 16 May 2019 via
  2. Interpretation Act 1978, Schedule 1
  3. Courts and Tribunals Judiciary website
  4. 1 2 The history of the Court of Appeal, Judiciary website
  5. Drewry (2007) p. 31
  6. Drewry (2007) p. 32
  7. 1 2 "".
  8. Drewry (2007) p. 34
  9. Drewry (2007) p. 35
  10. Drewry (2007) p. 36
  11. Drewry (2007) p. 38
  12. Drewry (2007) p. 46
  13. Drewry (2007) p. 56
  14. Drewry (2007) p. 57
  15. Drewry (2007) p. 58
  16. Drewry (2007) p. 60
  17. Elliott (2008) p. 15
  18. "Going to Court: Court of Appeal". Judiciary of England and Wales. Retrieved 28 October 2012.
  19. Senior Courts Act 1981, section 53(2)(d).
  20. Elliott (2008) p. 16
  21. "Lords Justices of Appeal". Archived from the original on 18 June 2012.
  22. Drewry (2007) p. 68
  23. 1 2 Drewry (2007) p. 81
  24. Drewry (2007) p. 69
  25. Drewry (2007) p. 70
  26. Drewry (2007) p. 71
  27. Drewry (2007) p. 73
  28. Drewry (2007) p. 78
  29. Drewry (2007) p. 84
  30. Senior Courts Act 1981, section 2(1).
  31. Drewry (2007) p. 111
  32. Elliott (2008) p. 129
  33. Elliott (2008) p. 139
  34. Drewry (2007) p. 110
  35. – "Cameras in court for the first time". Accessed 1 November 2013
  36. Ministry for Justice. "Landmark Day for Justice: Television Broadcasting in court goes live" infosheet. Accessed online 1 November 2013