Video-recording of tribunal proceedings requires special reasons and prior leave; general fraud allegations were insufficient.

Permission to video-record proceedings in a pending appeal was treated as exceptional and dependent on prior leave of the Tribunal and special reasons. The applicant did not meet that threshold because the resolution plans had already been approved and implemented, the applicant had not participated in the earlier CIRP, and the request rested only on general allegations of fraud. The Tribunal held that written submissions and ordinary hearing safeguards were sufficient to preserve the record, and rejected the request for video-recording.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicant had shown special reasons sufficient to permit video-recording of the proceedings in the appeal.

Analysis: Permission to record proceedings in a pending appeal was not treated as an ordinary entitlement but as a matter dependent on prior leave of the Tribunal and the showing of special reasons. The Tribunal noted that the underlying resolution plans had already been approved and implemented, that the applicant had not participated in the earlier CIRP proceedings, and that the request for recording was supported only by general allegations of fraud. The Tribunal further observed that written submissions and ordinary hearing safeguards were sufficient to ensure that arguments and contentions were taken on record. On that basis, the threshold of exceptional or compelling circumstances was not met.

Conclusion: The request for video-recording was rejected and the application was disposed of against the applicant.

---